Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (OBAN SOUTH PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the funding for Crossroads care attendant schemes in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have received 25 letters about the funding of local Crossroads schemes in the past 10 months.

Mrs. Michie: Does the Minister agree that the ending of the community programme will have a tremendously adverse effect on the excellent Crossroads scheme, which helps to give respite to the carers of over 4,000 disabled, multiple handicapped, sick people? Does he also agree that those people, who willingly and lovingly look after often confused and difficult relatives, desperately need time off just to do the ordinary things of life and that the Crossroads scheme enables them to do that? Will he tell us whether funding for the Crossroads scheme will continue and under what heading it might come—for example, the social work services group in Edinburgh?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said about the excellent work done by Crossroads schemes throughout Scotland. There are 42 operating in Scotland, of which 28 receive support from the Manpower Services Commission. There is no reason why funding should be withdrawn as a result of the changes in the employment training programme. Crossroads will be invited to apply to take part in the employment training programme, as will other voluntary bodies participating in the community programme.
The new programme will certainly place greater emphasis on training, but that need not necessarily mean that funding is no longer available. It is also open to local Crossroads schemes to apply to their local authorities and health boards for support.

Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment wrote to me on 28 March saying that the idea of a rate for the job will no longer be relevant to those employed on the scheme? Is he further aware that that is one of the main worries of those who are currently running the schemes and that, in East Kilbride, 300 beneficiaries of the scheme are likely to lose out if it does not continue?
Will the Minister provide the resources to the Lanarkshire health board to enable the scheme to continue? I should like to draw his attention to the fact that one third of the referrals to the scheme in East Kilbride come from the Lanarkshire health board. with no funding being provided by it.

Mr. Forsyth: The purpose of the scheme is to support carers and to help those in need of support. The question of the rate for the job does not arise. The training allowance is a more appropriate form of remuneration for a training programme. The proposed allowance will result in benefit entitlement, plus a premium of £10 to £12 a week. It will therefore be more attractive to unemployed people with families on higher benefit levels than the existing community programme wage limit.

Confinements

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current proportion of confinements in (a) general practitioner units, and (b) specialist consultancy hospitals.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The latest figures are 7·1 and 92·9 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that general practitioner units, including those in rural areas, have a good record and an important part to play? I cannot expect him to comment at this stage, but, in relation to the proposals from Grampian health board about Torphins hospital in my area, will he bear in mind that if such proposals go ahead a large area with a big population, which is not easily accessible to Aberdeen, will be deprived of proper local maternity services?

Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend has made clear his views on the Torphins proposal. Indeed, on 15 April he met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and members of the Torphins Action Group. I can assure my right hon. Friend that, when the formal submission from Grampian health board goes to my right hon. and learned Friend, we shall take into account all the arguments that he has put forward and, indeed, all the submissions that we receive, before reaching any conclusion.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Are we to take it from his comments that the Minister has not yet received comments from Grampian health board? When does he expect to respond to proposals? What facilities will be offered by the Scottish Office for consultation and negotiation with the many interested parties in Grampian region on the future of maternity units? Does he agree that the centralisation of such facilities would be to the detriment of freedom of choice for mothers in rural communities?

Mr. Forsyth: For a moment I thought that the hon. Lady was going to congratulate Grampian health board on acceeding to a request not to close the unit at Keith in her constituency.
As the hon. Lady knows, consultation is the responsibility of the health board. On her question about a submission from the health board, I can say that we had an initial approach, following the board meeting on 7 April. We have yet to receive formal submissions from the board. Obviously, we shall consider them and reach a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the health board should act constructively, sensibly and sympathetically to the problems of the far flung parts of our rural constituencies—the glens? Does he also agree that there are difficulties in getting to specialist units for confinement? Does he accept that the recent pay increase for nurses and others in the Health Service will substantially improve morale and service, and that that can only be good for all hospitals?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. All health boards have a duty to review the services that they offer to ensure that the best use is made of resources and that the service meets the needs of the widest range of patients. Obviously, that includes taking into account the rural areas. My hon. Friend is quite right to refer to nurses' pay, which under this Government has increased in real terms by 44 per cent.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Not in Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not in Scotland." When the Labour party was in power, nurses' pay was cut by 20 per cent. in real terms.

Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that many hospitals in Grampian and elsewhere, including Hartwood hospital in my constituency, are going through a tendering process for hospital services? Does he recall the Morrison directive, which stated that when considering tendering, cost should not be the only factor? Will he assure the House that he will not use his powers to insist that any particularly hospital must place a contract with the lowest tenderer, if that may result in a worse quality of services for patients?

Mr. Forsyth: I can help the hon. Gentleman rather more than he asks. I shall send him a copy of the advice that the Department has given to health boards. It makes it quite clear that competitive tendering is not simply about making savings. It is also about ensuring quality of service. We expect that competitive tendering will result in savings and, indeed, improved standards. That has been the experience in England. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to dissociate himself from those in the Labour party and in the trade union movement who fought so hard against competitive tendering, even though it offers many benefits to hospital services.

Strathclyde (Education Facilities)

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Strathclyde regional council to discuss education facilities in the region.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have no plans to meet Strathclyde regional council to discuss education facilities.

Mr. Martin: The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), are on record as saying that they want to save Notre Dame school, Lady and St. Francis school and Paisley grammar school, from closure. The Secretary of State even went to the length of getting the Prime Minister to intervene in the case of Paisley grammar school. Parents want to keep open schools in my constituency, such as Colston, Elm Vale and St. Bede's.Why is the Secretary of State making flesh of some schools in Strathclyde and fell of others?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is under a profound misunderstanding. The new regulations enable an appeal to be made to the Secretary of State where schools that are full, or substantially full, are proposed for closure. If schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency fall within those categories, they will be subject to appeal. I understand that St. Bede's is a denominational school. If its Catholic hierarchy is opposed to its closure, under existing regulations it would be subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen copies of extremely offensive letters that parents of pupils at Neilston primary school in my constituency have been receiving from the leader of the council, Commissar Charles Gray? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that yesterday Commissar Gray announced to the Evening Times that he would refuse to meet the chairman of the Neilston action group, the local minister? Will my right hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State agree to meet me, because people in Neilston are outraged that their letters will not be read by the leader of the council and by the implication that, because parents have had the temerity to write to Charles Gray, Neilston will be victimised? Is that not an outrageous way to behave towards parents and ratepayers?

Mr. Rifkind: I should certainly be concerned to hear that the convenor of Strathclyde regional council was not replying courteously to the representations of local people. Strathclyde regional council has often asserted its belief in the desirability of consultation. The Government believe in consultation, and we hope that the Labour party in Strathclyde region also believes in consultation. I am only too happy to meet my hon. Friend when he is making representations on behalf of his constituents.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State recognise the problem of falling school rolls in Strathclyde and other regional authorities? Would not his time be better spent on helping education authorities to deal with their problems than on making matters worse by pursuing unwanted ideas, such as school boards, proposals for testing, the curriculum and opting out, which were foisted on him by the Prime Minister and which have made him a figure of derision in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I recognise the legitimate desire of Strathclyde regional council to rationalise excess capacity, but whether that is best achieved by closing popular schools is another matter. On the latter part of the hon.


Gentleman's question, I should have thought that today of all days he might have desisted from such comment. We are all slightly intrigued by the Labour party's latest proposals to allow parents and pupils to write confidentially to their local authority about the quality of schools. It would appear that the Labour party believes that assessment is all very well so long as it is conveyed by parents in confidence to a local authority, but not if it is conveyed in public so that teachers and the local authority can be made aware of the matters involved. The Labour party should stop playing double standards in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress today. I ask for briefer questions and answers.

Policy Reform

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if people registering their names and addresses for the purposes of the poll tax will still be required by the registration officers to add further details about their dates of birth.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that this is a scandalous infringement of people's privacy? What guarantees can he give regarding the confidentiality of this peeping-Tom system?

Mr. Lang: There is nothing extraordinary or sinister about registering one's date of birth. It happens to us all soon after birth. Under section 20 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, access is clearly restricted.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that local income tax, as advocated by the Social and Liberal Democratic party, the Scottish National party and a large number of Socialists, would require far more individual detail than is presently required by the community charge register?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That might not require the registration of dates of birth, but it would certainly require reference numbers of another kind, which would be far more complex and detailed.

Sir Russell-Johnston: Is the Minister aware that these poll tax forms provide an opportunity for an appeal against definition as a "responsible person"? Will he avail himself of that opportunity?

Mr. Lang: There is certainly an opportunity for appeal against a definition of "responsible person". It is a new concept which is introduced by this legislation. That seems to be a strange concept to the Labour Benches, which are peopled by irresponsible persons.

Mr. Harris: In agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the amount of information required by a local income tax, does my hon. Friend also agree that the so-called Mates amendment would have involved a great deal of confidential information being made available to local councils?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that registration officers in England and Wales will be empowered generally to seek information that they require, which could include dates of birth.

Mr. Dewar: Does the inquiry form that is now being distributed by registration officers amount to designation under the statute as a responsible person? If so, does the right of appeal arise at this stage? Will the Minister address seriously the important question: is it necessary, when it has been specifically rejected by those drafting the English Bill, to have the date of birth included? Is that not the basis for tagging every adult with an algorithm—an obtrusive and threatening further invasion of privacy? Is it not time that Scottish Office Ministers followed the example of many of their Back-Bench colleagues and re-thought their position? Is it not clear that on a free vote, if such were allowed, the poll tax would be dead and buried? Has it not reached the point where public consent has clearly been withheld, and should not the whole offensive, unjust scheme be abandoned?

Mr. Lang: Designation does not begin with the issue of the canvass form. The canvass form is to enable the registration officer to designate a responsible person. The inclusion of dates of birth as a requirement on the registration form was at the request of local authority practitioners in Scotland.

Scottish Special Housing Association (Rents)

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the Scottish Special Housing Association's recent rent increases.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): None, Sir.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that SSHA rents are among some of the highest in Scotland? Is he further aware that the recently imposed rent increases are way beyond three times the level of inflation? Is he also aware that in the same number of weeks we have seen horrific cuts in housing benefit? Will he assure us that he will move to stop the SSHA from levying such an appalling burden on its tenants?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The increases are not out of line with the increases for local authorities. SSHA rents increased by 11·1 per cent., compared with 11·6 per cent., which was the average increase for Scottish local authorities, and the rents paid by new towns tenants are higher. It is important that the appropriate mechanism for lowering the effective rents of those on low incomes or the unemployed should be through the revised housing benefit arrangements, which take account of household circumstances. The SSHA expects to spend 10 per cent. more on management and maintenance, which is the reason for the increase.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree with the evidence that a substantial number of people who are at present in council properties would be happy and delighted to transfer to SSHA properties because of its better record on maintenance and repairs?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am convinced that the SSHA is regarded as a model landlord throughout Scotland.

Mr. Steel: Given these rent increases, does the Minister accept that, because of the changes in social security benefits and the relatively modest increase in the pension, large numbers of SSHA tenants will find themselves poorer this year than last year? That is the responsibility, not of the SSHA, but of the Government.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have said that for every pound by which the rent of those who are on income support rises, their housing benefit will increase by a similar amount. Further, a housing deficit subsidy is payable to the SSHA. That subsidy was increased to £24·4 million this year. The purpose of the subsidy is to ensure that rents do not rise beyond a certain level.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Following the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant, first, that he has received no representations about these rent increases, and, secondly, that 1,000 local authority tenants in Castlemilk have recently voted to go into the SSHA, despite higher rents, because they would receive higher standards of repair and maintenance?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is significant that I have had no representations. I think it is valuable that the expertise of the SSHA should be involved in urban regeneration projects, and we would like to see more of that.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that those of us who have SSHA tenants in our constituencies recognise that there is a great deal of anxiety about the higher rents and the social security changes? Does he also accept that he would have received representations had the SSHA been an elected rather than an appointed body?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say. There is to be a full debate on the social security arrangements and housing benefit later this afternoon, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put forward that point.

Mr. Home Robertson: Are not these unwarranted rent increases a bitter foretaste of what is in store for tenants in Scotland under the Scottish Homes organisation? Will the Minister stop playing cat and mouse with 80,000 SSHA tenants and give them a genuine choice, including the possibility of maintaining fair rents and security of tenure by transferring to local authorities when the SSHA is abolished under the Housing (Scotland) Bill?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm—because there has been misinformation in certain areas—that SSHA tenants, when they become tenants of Scottish Homes, will retain all their existing rights. They will be secure tenants and their rents will be set according to the present procedure. As the hon. Gentleman asked about the setting of rents, I should point out that the council of management will determine the rents. In advising the SSHA of the annual deficit subsidy, the Scottish Development Department shows a range of possible increases. It is ultimately for the SSHA to determine rent levels which, with the deficit subsidy, will generate the revenue to maintain its stock in good order.

Radiographers

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of Scotland's radiographers within the National Health Service.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Radiographers play an essential part in a range of diagnostic and therapeutic services.

Mr. Galloway: Scotland's X-ray men and women will clearly see through the hypocritical cant of that answer. The Government have given early retirement opportunities at the age of 55 to physiotherapists and many grades of nurses on the ground that their work is strenuous. Why have they refused to allow radiographers to be considered for early retirement? Is their job not strenuous? Why are radiographers not being given a fair crack of the whip, when they are such an essential and hard-working part of Scotland's Health Service?

Mr. Forsyth: As to the question of cant, I remind the hon. Gentleman that under this Government radiographer's salaries have gone up in real terms by about 40 per cent. Under the Labour Government, which he supported, their salaries decreased in real terms by 21 per cent.
The facility to retire at the age of 55 within the National Health Service is a legacy from before the inception of the National Health Service. It was carried across to protect the rights of those who had an expectation to retire at an earlier age than the accepted norm.
As regards the nature of the job, the National Radiological Protection Board has recently issued advice on exposure limits, and that advice envisages a full working life up to the age of 65.

Mr. Doran: As well as the shortage of radiographers in the Health Service, the Minister will be well aware that there is a shortage of heart treatment facilities in the Aberdeen area. Will he tell the House when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the review body's findings, with particular reference to the shortage in Aberdeen?

Mr. Forsyth: First, I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is not a shortage of radiographers in the Health Service. Indeed, quite recently there was concern that there might be an over-supply. We have increased the numbers substantially. Secondly, on his question about providing additional facilities for cardiac surgery in the National Health Service, I shall be answering a written question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) today on that matter.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that on top of the largest ever expenditure on the Health Service, which has been made in the current year, the Government have announced additional expenditure of £1·38 billion including, of course, the welcome pay award for nurses? Does that not show strongly that the Government really do care about health care and that they are determined to have the finest standards in the world?

Mr. Forsyth: Under this Government the Health Service in Scotland will receive rather more than an additional £200 million this year. That brings spending on the National Health Service to record levels—up by some 28 per cent. in real terms. We have the biggest capital


investment programme and our nurses are better paid than ever before. If I may give just one example, the maximum salary for a sister on an acute ward will now be £13,925, which represents an increase of 16 per cent., as a result of the pay review award. That represents an increase in pay for sisters who have responsibilities on acute wards of 55 per cent. in real terms or of £4,945 since 1979, so we do not want any lectures from Opposition Members, who presided over cuts in nurses' pay.

Newbattle Abbey College

Mr Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has had in relation to the future of Newbattle Abbey college.

Mr. Rifkind: On 10 February I met the hon. Gentleman with some of his colleagues to discuss the future of Newbattle Abbey college, and my officials met representatives of the board of governors on 25 January.

Mr. Eadie: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer, as he is supposed to be a friend of Newbattle Abbey adult residential college, may I ask him to explain the special factors about Scottish education which mean that Scotland has to be deprived of its adult residential college? Can he explain to the House why his office is prepared to fund students who go south of the border to colleges that are akin to Newbattle Abbey, but is not prepared to fund Newbattle Abbey college? Will he come to the Lobby tomorrow, like a real friend of Newbattle Abbey college, when he will get a full explanation?

Mr. Rifkind: I want the resources that are available to benefit the maximum number of people in Scotland who wish to enter higher education. The fact is that in the past year over 6,500 people over the age of 21 entered full-time higher education, of whom only 40 went to Newbattle Abbey. The conclusion that we have reluctantly come to is that the resources that at the moment are going into educating those 40 persons could be much more effectively used to provide the benefits of higher education to many more people than that.
Only last week I was able to announce a £1 million programme of wider access to higher education for people in Scotland over the next three years. That shows that the Government give priority to that area. Newbattle Abbey was initiated when there were no alternative means of achieving higher education for those who had not had that benefit in their earlier years, but such alternatives now exist to a far greater extent than would have been thought possible some years ago.

Mr. Maxton: About 20 minutes ago the Secretary of State said that the Government believed in consultation. If that is the case, will he now tell the House why he made his clear decision and announcement on Newbattle Abbey without consulting the board of governors or anybody else about it? Is that not an odd sort of consultation? Will he now answer the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? What is different about education in Scotland from that in England and Wales? What makes Scotland different? The Secretary of State did not answer that in the previous question that was put to him.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is putting forward the proposition that there should be uniformity of policy north and south of the border in educational matters, that is interesting when one takes into account earlier comments on other educational matters for which he has been responsible.
We gave the governors of Newbattle Abbey college 18 months' notice of our intention to withdraw funding. They have been making representations since then, as has the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), with whom I have had a meeting. We shall carefully examine the representations that have been made, but the hon. Gentleman had better come to terms with the question whether he wants Scottish education to be decided on the basis of Scottish needs or whether, as he seems to be saying, it should be automatically brought into line with whatever is happening south of the border.

Education Costs

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is spent on the education of each pupil in primary and secondary education; what were the comparable figures in cash and real terms five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Between 1978–79 and 1986–87 spending per pupil in local authority primary schools in Scotland increased in real terms by 34 per cent. The corresponding increase for pupils in secondary schools was 26 per cent. I shall arrange for the full details to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on those remarkable figures? The whingeing Labour party in Scotland should tell people the facts, which are that much more is being spent per pupil in Scotland than in England, Ireland and Wales—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the United Kingdom Parliament and the hon. Gentleman has a question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Greenway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Scots cannot be basically a nation of slow learners or of less fundamental intelligence than the English, Welsh or Irish? So why is so much more being spent per pupil in Scotland than in the rest of the country?

Mr. Forsyth: Education costs £424 a year more per secondary pupil in Scotland than in England. It is difficult to be precise about the reasons for that, but they might include, for example, the fact that in Scotland we have a larger number of teachers per pupil and higher secondary teachers' salaries, and we have had less success than England in reducing surplus places. Most significant of all, the rates burden on schools in Scotland is much higher, being 8 per cent. in Scotland as opposed to 3 per cent. in England. Rates account for no less than 25·8 per cent. of non-teaching costs in our schools.

Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister confirm that the main reason for the higher quality of education in Scotland is that none of our regional authorities have the misfortune to be run by his party?

Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that the education authorities are well funded under this Government and are provided


with more staff than are those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He will no doubt want to reflect that this year expenditure on education in Scotland will go up by about 9 per cent., which is a better performance than that under the Government whom he supported.

Following are the details:


Net current expenditure1 per pupil in Scotland



Primary schools
Secondary schools



At outturn prices
At 1986–87 prices2
At outturn prices
At 1986–87 prices2


1978–79
395
771
719
1,403


1983–84
882
1,008
1,368
1,563


1986–873
1,036
1,036
1,764
1,764

Notes:

1. Net current expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

2. The outturn figures for the earlier years have been revalued to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

3. The latest information available on actual expenditure is for the financial year 1986–87.

Fort William and Glencoe Ski Facilities

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist in the development of the Fort William ski area and further development of the Glencoe ski facility; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The Government's policy is that ski development should be initiated and led by the private sector. We are ready to assist, through our agencies, any viable proposals that are put forward.

Mr. Hind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I recently spent some time in the Scottish ski resorts—[Interruption.] Is my hon. Friend aware that those ski areas have tremendous potential for tourism and the creation of jobs, and that that potential is not being pursued in certain areas? Will he confirm that the way to deal with that problem is through private sector-led activity? The Fort William development is typical of places where jobs could be created for the betterment of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was delighted that he was able to benefit from Scottish skiing facilities and I hope that many Englishmen will benefit from them in the future. As regards the development of skiing in the Aonach Mor area, my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important to have private sector input in any forthcoming development. The previous development plans included 84 per cent. funding from the public sector. Clearly that figure was too high for a project that then had questionable viability. We are, of course, prepared to consider further propositions.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Minister arrange to transport all the Conservative district council candidates to the ski slopes of Fort William and Glencoe so that they can get plenty of practice for the massive slide that they will take next Thursday in the district council elections as a result of the poll tax, cuts in housing benefit and the suffering inflicted on the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I do not believe that that question is worthy of an answer.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that skiing is one of the fastest-growing participant sports in Scotland? I am sorry that Opposition Members do not enjoy it. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that where developments take place it is important that they are on a sufficiently large commercial scale so that any developer can properly fulfil his financial obligations in maintaining the environment of the area?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Skiing in Scotland is a fast expanding sport, just as Conservative participation in district councils will be fast expanding after next month.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that both the skiing areas that have been mentioned are in my constituency? It might have been a good thing if he had told his hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that an expansion at Aonach Mor would have been in operation now had the Government taken the positive action towards that development that his hon. Friend appears to be urging upon him.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend urged upon me the strong involvement of the private sector. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will remember that the previous proposition involved 84 per cent. of public money and the cost per job would have been between £60,000 and £80,000. Given the questionable viability of that plan, that would not have been a desirable use of public funds.

Forestry Products (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of forestry products from the Isle of Wight for the last five years.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The value of timber and Christmas trees removed from Forestry Commission woodlands on the island between 1 April 1983 and 31 March 1988 was approximately £164,000. The value of produce from private woodlands over that period is not known.

Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the lack of a broadleaved woodland policy in the past has deprived our world-famous craftsmen and shipwrights of locally grown timber? Is my hon. Friend aware that the wooden ships that sailed out to defeat the Armada off the Isle of Wight, manned by the iron men of England, were built from oak taken from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, with a county council chairman named Drake, should we have to sail out tomorrow for a similar event we could only do so on pine log rafts?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend that, although the Forestry Commission headquarters may be in my constituency, we are conscious of the interests of the Isle of Wight. Most of the productive woodlands on the island are managed by the Forestry Commission, which is presently restocking with broad-leaved trees where the soil conditions are suitable. My hon. Friend has had an invitation from the manager to visit the woodlands and he will discover that many of the trees are larches, which are suitable for boat building on the island.

Brewing Industry

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of the Scottish brewing industry.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister not received any correspondence from Scottish and Newcastle Breweries on the question of theft? What constitutes a theft? Is it when a man steals £1,000 from his building society or defrauds the Inland Revenue of £500 or is it, perhaps, when a church-going director of Scottish and Newcastle comes to Workington, to a development area, and steals the jobs of people working in my constituency? Is he not the thief? Is it not fair to say that in 100 years' time, when we are more circumspect about such matters, it will be the director of Scottish and Newcastle who will be seen as the criminal, and perhaps not the others?

Mr. Lang: Plainly, the hon. Gentleman is an expert on this subject. So far as I am aware, the shareholders of Matthew Brown accepted a takeover bid from Scottish and Newcastle, as they were free to do. I seem to recall that Matthew Brown itself closed down a brewery in Carlisle—Theakston's a couple of years ago.

Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend noticed the article on page 25 of The Times today, from which it would seem that that excellent company, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, was frustrated in 1985 by highly questionable, if not illegal, activities on the part of the supporters of Matthew Brown plc?

Mr. Lang: I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend has referred. He will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a continuing DTI investigation.

Rates (Shetland Islands)

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Shetland Islands council regarding rates.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a letter from the convenor of Shetland Islands council asking him to reconsider the council's rate support grant for 1988–89.

Mr. Wallace: I know that the Minister is well aware of the deep concern in Shetland among domestic and business ratepayers at the 85 per cent. increase in rates. Does he not accept that for many years the needs element awarded to Shetland Islands council under the rate support grant has been much less—indeed, only half—the assessed need of the islands' council? Given the substantial rates increase, what hope can he give for a review of the rate support grant so that domestic and non-domestic ratepayers will get some relief?

Mr. Lang: I accept that the circumstances of Shetland are exceptional. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have always said that we would be willing to reconsider the position once the Sullom Voe valuation appeal was finally resolved. I am sure he will also appreciate that it is difficult to do this retrospectively when the grant has been fixed for a particular year and the cash has been distributed.

Hospital Patients

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were cared for in Scottish hospitals in each year from 1979.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: There was an increase in in-patient discharges from NHS hospitals in Scotland of 104,708 between 1979 and 1987. Out-patient attendances increased in the same period by 464,356 and day cases nearly doubled. With permission, I shall arrange to have the information requested published in the Official Report.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not excellent news that the Scots are getting so much treatment? Is it not also the case that even more patients could be treated in Scotland if it were not for the attitude of the Scottish TUC, which is trying to insist that all work within Scottish hospitals is carried out by a closed shop of its own directly employed members at the expense of private sector employees, many of whom are also union members?

Mr. Forsyth: As I understand it, the STUC has called off official action against competitive tendering in hospitals in Scotland and is setting about ensuring that its members take part in the competitive tendering process, which we very much welcome. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of the Health Service in Scotland and the effects of industrial action. Some 3,500 operations have been lost as a result of the action taken by the STUC, at a time when we have a major waiting list initiative. We are reducing waiting lists, which had no fewer than 20,000 people added to them because of the last round of industrial action organised by trade unions and supported by Opposition Members.

Mr. Darling: The Minister of State will no doubt be aware that tomorrow Lothian health board will announce its option appraisal plan for the replacement of the Royal infirmary in Edinburgh. Can he assure us that when the appraisal is finished the Government will fund the replacement of the infirmary so that it is not downgraded to the status of a district general hospital, and so that it can maintain its status as a major clinical and teaching centre in the United Kingdom and the world?

Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, for some time we have been emphasising the importance of Lothian completing the review of acute services so that a decision can be taken as to the best means of going forward with Edinburgh royal infirmary, whether on its present site or on a green field site. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to I he success of Lothian health board in establishing so many new capital projects in its area, including the new district general hospital at Livingston, which is one of the biggest capital projects under way in Scotland at present.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Can the Minister state how many hospitals in Scotland have been closed since 1979? Will he state his level of commitment to rural and borough hospitals in Scotland? Will he join in the fight in his own district of Angus to ensure that the maternity units in Montrose and Arbroath remain open to continue their excellent work? Will he state his level of commitment to such hospitals?

Mr. Forsyth: May I enlist the hon. Gentleman's support in the fight to improve the Health Service, instead of


concentrating on attacking a Government who have ensured that out-of-date and redundant facilities are closed in order to invest in new facilities? I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Scottish National Member, would point to the considerable share of the capital programme enjoyed by hospitals in Scotland. Since 1979 there have been no fewer than 53 new hospital projects costing more than £1 million, and 32 more are in the pipeline, yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to ask me about closures.

Following is the information:


In-patient discharges, out-patient treatments and day cases in NHS hospitals in Scotland.


Year ending 31 March
In-patient discharges
Out-patient treatments1
Day cases


1979
737,816
5,206,078
80,271


1980
764,301
5,268,984
87,223


1981
785,080
5,367,934
98,044


1982
793,171
5,433,697
104,729


1983
744,436
5,278,411
98,592


1984
809,681
5,519,030
126,721


1985
821,642
5,593,127
132,613


1986
837,044
5,668,199
147,132


1987
842,524
5,670,434
158,841


1 Out-patient attendances at consultant clinics.

Rating Reform

Mr. Allen Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to monitor expenditure incurred by local authorities in compiling the community charge register.

Mr. Lang: The setting-up costs for the community charge register will be taken into account by local authorities when completing the usual monitoring returns which they send to central Government.

Mr. Adams: Does the Secretary of State agree that the cost is borne by the local authority? Does he further agree that the registration officer responsible for distributing poll tax forms and cards is an employee of the regional council? If he does agree, will he remind the registration officer for Glasgow that he works for the regional council and not for the Government? Apparently that officer does not agree that he is an employee of the council, and has said so both in court and to the press.

Mr. Lang: The already generous 1988–89 RSG settlement has made provision for an extra £12 million to be made available this year to meet current expenditure costs for the setting up of the community charge, in addition to which about £20 million of capital costs have been provided over the past two years.
The powers of the community charge registration officer in Glasgow are clearly prescribed in the 1987 Act. I note that when the hon. Gentleman took his case to court recently he lost on all four counts.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend monitor the cost of non-co-operation of the kind sponsored by so many Opposition Members? As to dates of birth, does he recall that one has to give a date of birth when applying for a driving licence? Does he have any information on whether the Scottish Labour party will insist on people in Scotland giving up driving?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The increased cost resulting from the non-co-operation urged by the Labour party will have to be borne by other community charge payers. As to driving, the one consolation I have is that the Labour party does at least drive on the left-hand side of the road.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister referred to the recent judgment in Glasgow sheriff court. Does he agree that the sheriff made it clear that the card being distributed by the registration officer, which appeared to suggest that people should not exercise their right to take three weeks to consider their position before returning the form, had no legal validity and could be ignored? Will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the widely reported allegations by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that those exercising their rights in raising genuine doubts about their role as responsible persons, and in testing the system, as they are legally entitled to do, may be liable to fines and criminal penalties that do not exist in the statute? That form of near-intimidation, or at least of misrepresentation, has been widely resented.

Mr. Lang: I would not dream of dissociating myself from anything said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when accurately represented. As to the court case, I recall that the sheriff regarded the procedure of issuing postcards as being sensible, reasonable and practicable.

Social and Health Policies

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for the Government's social and health policies of the recently published preliminary return for 1987 for Scotland by the Registrar General.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I welcome the fact that the preliminary return indicates that infant mortality is at the lowest rate ever recorded. However, I am concerned about the level of premature deaths from lung cancer and coronary heart disease and will continue to promote health education measures.

Mr. McAllion: I am sure that the Minister joins me in welcoming the Registrar General's information that the lowest-ever rate of infant and perinatal deaths and stillbirths was recorded in 1987. However, I draw his attention to a petition printed in today's Order Paper from mothers and members of the Royal College of Midwives in Dundee, which calls upon the Government to face the facts about the under-funding of the maternity services. Does the Minister agree that unless the Government face the facts and provide adequate funding the information from the Registrar General in future years may not be so encouraging?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman takes my breath away. The return from the Registrar General shows the lowest rates ever recorded for stillbirths and of perinatal mortality. That is an example of the success of this Government's investment in the Health Service. It is an example of the success of the Government's investment in the Health Service. It is true that a result of our success in saving infants with a very low birth weight is that they require some six weeks to three months of intensive and special care, and that of course causes intense pressure on


the available cots. However, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge what is being done in the acceptance of the review body's recommendations on pay for those involved in intensive care in other aspects of the hospital. He should welcome what is being achieved, rather than using it as a means to attack the Government's record, which is excellent.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister have regard to the burning needs and demands placed on the Health Service, both social and medical, and in particular the special implications of the AIDS epidemic on the east coast of Scotland? Is he satisfied that enough money is being devoted, in both social and the medical directions, to cope with the problem in future?

Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I am satisfied. If we were not satisfied, we would be devoting more resources to the problem. We have made an additional £1 million available to the health boards to help voluntary organisations. As for the resources required for local authorities, the hon. Gentleman knows that a working party has been examining the matter. Its assessment of need is well within the additional resources that we have made available for social work, w hich—I speak from memory—have gone up by nearly one third in real terms under the Government.

Housing Revenue Accounts

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the net capital allocations for the housing revenue accounts for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen district councils for the current financial year.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The net housing revenue account capital allocations for 1988–89 are £7·340 million for Edinburgh, £58·828 million for Glasgow, £8·095 million for Dundee and £10·506 million for Aberdeen. Councils may also utilise the actual capital receipts which they generate within the financial year.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister explain why he refused to meet an all-party deputation from Edinburgh district council, which wished to voice its concern about the housing benefit changes that have had such a traumatic effect on the lives of so many pensioners and others in Edinburgh?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have visited Edinburgh district council within the last few weeks, when I was made fully aware of the problems. I do not recall that particular point being an issue, but it will be fully debated later this afternoon. What council members were worried about was the rate at which council house sales might be carried out, and I hope that I was able to reassure them.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give an assurance that tomorrow he will meet a delegation of tenants from Cunninghame district, who are coming to lobby and to express their deep anxieties about Scottish Homes and various other aspects of housing policy? Will he come face to face with people's real and legitimate concerns?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have attended meetings of tenants, and I recently addressed the Scottish tenants' organisation in Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to meet me and put specific points, I shall certainly meet him. I leave it at that.

Community Care

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the recommendations of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement on his future policy.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Government are considering Sir Roy Griffiths' proposals and reactions to his report. My right hon. and learned Friend will bring foward proposals for the development of community care policies in Scotland in due course.

Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister let us know when he will publish his answer to the SHARPEN report?

Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SHARPEN report was produced by a working party of the planning council. The council has now had an opportunity to consider it, and I believe that it has been forwarded to the Department. We shall consider the report and the foreword provided by the full planning council, and issue a response in due course.

Mr. Worthington: The Government's response to the Griffiths report was very depressing, given that the failure to produce a coherent policy on community care is causing widespread suffering among the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government's response will come within the next couple of months, and no later?

Mr. Forsyth: This Government have done more than any of their predecessors for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped and when the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was in power it did nothing to improve facilities in units such as Lennox Castle and the Royal Scottish national hospital. Far from the Government's response being depressing, it was entirely responsible. The Griffiths report raises far-reaching proposals which require assessment, and local authorities and health boards need to be given an opportunity to respond to that report. We have given them that opportunity, and as a responsible Government we shall give the report considered thought before reaching any conclusions.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister has made an extravagant statement about the Government's commitment to care in the community. Is he aware of the tremendous work being done by Scottish local authorities in difficult financial circumstances? Will he accept that the Disabled Persons Services, Consultation and Representation Act, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), has still not captured the imagination of the Government? When will they make a commitment to fund the Act before the Griffiths report is implemented?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman said that I had made some extravagant statements. We have made substantial commitments in expenditure on the Health Service and in transferring resources towards the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly, which have been a success for our policies. As to his point about local authorities being hard-pressed for funds, the resources that have been made available to them for social work have gone up by more than one third. It is a pity that they have not devoted more of these resources to providing facilities and devoting


themselves to joint planning. We are making progress on that, but not fast enough. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his friends in local government.

Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to use Scottish Question Time as a dressing room? It is bad enough when Members such as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) turn up as imported token Scots in Scottish Questions, but it is even worse when they decide to sport tartan ties for which any normal Scotsman would demand a volume control. When they decide to take them off and pass them round at the end of Scottish Question Time, it is not only an act of provocation but an act of contempt towards the people of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) had a question on the Order Paper, and many Scottish Members have questions on the Order Paper on other days.

Mr. McKelvey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not further to it.

Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order regarding the changing of dress in the Chamber. At Scottish Question Time some hon. Members come in wearing a kilt. Would it be in order for them to change from their kilt into trousers at the end of Scottish questions?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly I hope not!

Opposition Day

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Housing Benefit (Changes)

Mr. Speaker: I have to announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Before we start the debate, I point out that no fewer than 34 hon. Members have so far sought to take part and I appeal for brief contributions. If we have them, I shall be able to call a great many of those hon. Members.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its concern at the evidence of the hardships caused by the recent changes in housing benefit to many individuals, particularly pensioners with property which is for sale but has not been sold, modest savings or small occupational or disability pensions; recognises that Her Majesty's Government may not have fully appreciated this degree of hardship in framing the new regulations; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to raise the capital disregard so that no one with less than £10,000 in capital assets loses housing benefit, and to relax the taper by which housing benefit is reduced for claimants with any income above the poverty line.
When the House first debated the changes in housing benefit three years ago, we were repeatedly told that they represented the most fundamental change in the welfare state for 40 years, that they were the outcome of the most profound review of the welfare state for 40 years and that they must be designed to stand the tests of the next 40 years. The then Secretary of State for Social Services, when speaking in the debate on the consultation paper in 1985, said that the changes must prepare the welfare state for the next half century.
Far from standing the test of the next 40 years, the changes in housing benefit have not survived the test of the first four weeks. Already, over the past three days, we have seen a series of hurried and frenetic meetings between Ministers, interrupted on one occasion, so we are told, by President Mugabe, to get together a package of emergency sticking plaster to put over the cuts. Why? Because the system they introduced after that fundamental and profound review has proved harsh in its social consequences and embarrassing in its political consequences.
In the last debate on the issue, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State took care to remind us that it had been thought up three years ago. On the surface, they meant that it should have been opposed then and not now. However, the sub-text of what the Ministers were saying was equally clear. The sub-text was that as they were not in office three years ago, they should not be blamed for the measure, as they were both somewhere else.
The air is already thick with the grinding of alibis. Last Friday, in that curious way that the press have of suddenly being told something, it emerged that the former Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State for Employment, had never supported the figure of £6,000. He had always wanted a figure of £10,000, but the figure of £6,000 was imposed on him. There is only one person who could have imposed such a figure. Yesterday. I read in one of the papers a report still sticky with the thumbprint of Bernard Ingham, which stated that the Prime Minister was furious

with Ministers for not foreseeing the row over the new rules. Suddenly, no one wants it to be thought that they had thought up the new rules.
There is no doubt where we stand. From the moment that this issue was first debated, we vigorously opposed the changes. It was our view that one could not without hardship force up rents and force up rates, as the Government have done, and simultaneously cut the housing subsidies to the poorest. It is not just the Labour party that opposed these cuts three years ago. The Child Poverty Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, Help the Aged and every local authority association warned the Government that the cuts in housing benefit were impractical and indefensible.
The only organisation unreservedly to support the proposals on housing benefit was the Institute of Directors—not the most obvious source of advice on the problems and experiences of social security claimants. Nevertheless, Ministers chose to take that advice. Having marched on with the proposals in defiance of the criticism of all informed groups and all representative organisations, they have only themselves to blame if they are obliged to beat an ignominious retreat.
The motion magnanimously recognises that Ministers may not have appreciated the hardships that the change will cause. Eagerly, I turned to the amendment tabled by the Secretary of State for Social Services and his right hon. Friends to see if at least that passage had been accepted by the Government. Sadly, I found that that sentence would also be deleted.
The truth is, as Ministers know, that the two alternatives before them are equally uncomfortable. Either they knew that the changes would cause the degree of hardship that we have witnessed in our surgeries, in which case it was cruel to persevere with them and dishonest to conceal it from their Back Benchers, or they did not know, in which case somebody along the line has been guilty of incompetence on a heroic scale. Charitably, I am inclined to believe the latter explanation.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Member explain to the House why it is Labour party policy that those who have capital should be subsidised by those who are on low incomes and have no capital?

Mr. Cook: It is perfectly true that the previous Labour Government, and every previous Conservative Government did not apply a capital rule to the treatment of housing benefit or to the rent rebate system that went before it. It is wholly unjust and unreasonable that people with modest savings of £3,000 to £6,000 should be treated as if they are receiving an interest rate of 20 per cent. per annum. Later in my speech, I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about a particular case in my constituency. I shall be interested to hear if it was Conservative party policy to hit my constituent in that way. My constituent will be equally interested, as she has voted Conservative in all her 84 years.
All the evidence coming in is that the cuts have resulted in financial cuts well in excess of the Government's estimates. We now have the data from the first local authorities that have completed the transfer of claimants to the new assessment. We know how their expenditure under the new scheme compares with their expenditure under the old scheme. The drop is dramatic.
The Government repeatedly told us that the "savings", as they prefer to express it, would amount to £650 million as against expenditure this year, had the previous system continued. That is an 11 per cent. cut. The experience of every local authority to which I have spoken is that they are experiencing cuts well in excess of that figure.
Glasgow finds that its expenditure has gone down by £22 million, compared with last year. That is a 15 per cent. cut on last year's expenditure, and it is a 21 per cent. cut in what it might have expected to spend this year. If Glasgow's experience is typical, the cuts across the nation are not £650 million; they are £1,200 million.
Nor is Glasgow the worst. In Renfrew, expenditure is down 18 per cent. on last year and it is 24 per cent. down on this year. The most spectacular is my local authority, West Lothian, which is down 25 per cent. on last year and 30 per cent. on this year—almost three times the Government's estimate.
The local authority has supplied me with a table of losers, banded by the amount that its tenants lose per week. It provides an illuminating contrast with the bland assurances given to the House by the Government. Ministers predicted that 8·6 per cent. of claimants would lose over £5 a week. The figures prepared by my local authority's officials, working in the real world and with real tenants, show that 21 per cent. are losing over £6 a week and that a staggering 11 per cent. are losing over £12 a week. The director of finance has already received three threats of suicide from tenants in the past fortnight.

Mr. David Young: Could I put this in human terms? The case of Miss Turnbull was mentioned last week in The Guardian. As a result of the Government cuts, she will be forced to give up her job, because her mother owns a small house, and remove her mother from nursing care, or she will have to put the onus on the owner of the private nursing home either to subsidise the lady, who needs nursing care, or to expel her. Is that what we mean by a caring Tory authority?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend suggests that there are a number of cases, to which I shall turn in a moment, where, far from providing an incentive to work, the rules make it almost impossible to reconcile family commitments with their work.
Given the unexpected ferocity of these cuts, much talk of "anomalies" is now emerging from ministerial briefings. Out there, apparently, there are 5·5 million anomalies who have just seen their housing benefit cut. In the last debate a fortnight ago, the Minister of State accused us of scouring the country looking for hard luck cases. I assure him that we do not need to scour the country; they tumble out of our mail bags. Those are the kind of letters that I alone have received in the past two weeks. They fall into our surgeries every time we open the door. People ring our offices and our homes.
Having counselled many of those who have been shocked by the loss of their housing benefit, I warn the Government that there are three stages to their reaction. The first is disbelief that the sums can be correct. The second is despair at how they can make ends meet. The third is anger that they should be required to make such sacrifices, an anger that flares all the more fiercely when they compare their losses this month with last month's

Budget that conspicuously did not ask for sacrifices from people rich beyond the dreams of anybody on housing benefit.
Let me share with the House some of the cases which I have had to counsel. On Friday I visited a constituent who is an elderly lady living by herself. She retired early due to an industrial injury to her back from lifting refrigerators around a showroom and received severe disablement allowance. She has lost £32·60 a week in housing benefit. After paying rent and rates, her weekly income has fallen from £78 to £47. When I visited her, she was arranging to have her telephone removed. She had just spoken to her granddaughter to explain that she would no longer be able to afford the presents which she used to purchase. A telephone to the outside world and the ability to play one's part in the family are important parts of being able to serve one's retirement in dignity. I cannot get my mind around the idea that there are those who would justify visiting such a devastating drop in income on an elderly person.
Then there are families with children. I received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Shippam in Wigan who have two children. Mr. Shippam is on a job training scheme. His misfortune is that he receives special hardship allowance, which takes him well over the limit for the housing benefit threshold. He has lost £13 in housing benefit and £6 in free school meals. The total lost to that household is £19 out of a total income of £105. Lest the Government ask us how much that family has gained in family credit, I remind Ministers that Mr. Shippam is on the job training scheme and has been refused family credit, as he is counted as not being at work.
Then there is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Brown of Windermere. Mr. Brown is a gardener who gets take-home pay of £82 a week. On that, plus child benefit and family credit, Mr. and Mrs. Brown bring up four young children. Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Brown get family credit and, yes, their family credit has gone up by £14. But they have also lost £19 in housing benefit, £10 in free school meals and £2 in milk tokens. They are £16 a week worse off, even allowing for the increase in family credit. How does the party of family values reconcile that cut imposed on a couple struggling to hold a family together on a low wage? Mrs. Brown's letter used words to this effect: "Yesterday when I received the notification of housing benefit, I spent most of the day in tears. Today has not been much better."
I turn to the treatment of young people. It is difficult to think of a better way of removing the incentive to work than the way that young people are treated under the housing benefit rules. Because young people are now entitled only to a new junior rate of benefit, they start losing housing benefit at the rate of 85p in the pound on any income over £26. Last week in Norwich I met a chef in the National Health Service earning £61 a week who had just lost £24 a week in housing benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has informed me of young people in his constituency who are employed on £55 a week as wardens of sheltered units. It is a condition of the job that they have to be tenants of one of those units and, therefore, they have no control over housing costs. They have just seen their rent and rates go up sixfold.
These cases will be no worse off—indeed, they might even be better off—if they gave up work, except for the fact that a month ago, perhaps prudently anticipating these changes, the Minister of State took powers to stop their benefit for 26 weeks if they gave up the struggle to square poverty wages with miserly benefits. None of the cases to


which I have referred would remotely benefit from the change in the savings rule which we are told we might hear about this afternoon.
The savings rule is devastating in its impact on those caught by it. I turn to the case of the constituent to which I referred the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). That constituent is a staunch Tory voter. Indeed, in her letter she said that she wrote to me with "great reluctance", as I was a Labour Member of Parliament. She has just over £6,000. Her only income is a non-contributory pension and the income from £6,000. Together, that gives her a weekly income of £32 a week. She has now lost all her housing benefit. Her weekly rent and rates demand is £29 a week, leaving her £3 a week to live on.
A moment's contemplation shows that such a rule is preposterous and I shall readily give way to the hon. Member for Bristol, East again, if he is prepared to defend his claim that that is Conservative Government policy. Even the readers of The Sun have grasped that the rule is unfair and have voted by three to one on The Sun hotline to scrap it.
I welcome the fact that the Government, although they will seek to delete that part of my motion calling for a change in the rule, appear to have decided to change the rule. That is quite a turnround from the position of only three weeks ago. We know from the leaked minute of the Cabinet Sub-Committee that, only three weeks ago, the Prime Minister presided over a meeting at which she was plotting even further cuts in housing benefit. Now, instead of more cuts, we are to have higher expenditure. Supply day debates are starting to become expensive for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We must try to make them more expensive.
As Ministers have accepted that part of our motion, I am all the more disappointed that they appear to be resisting the remainder of the motion, because, although a change in the savings rule will be welcome to those people hit by that rule, they are relatively few. To put them in perspective, such a change would help 150,000 claimants. The Government admit that 5·5 million people, the vast majority of whom have no capital to their names, are losing as a result of the changes. If we are to help those people and to relieve the harshness of any of the other cases that I have quoted, we must tackle the sharp and cruel taper which provides such a savage clawback of benefit.
There is one compelling reason why Conservative Members should think about changing that clawback and helping those 5·5 million people. The majority of those people are in Conservative constituencies. Fifty-five per cent. of all losers under the new rules have a Conservative Member of Parliament. On average, every Conservative Member has 7,500 losers in his constituency. To express that point more crudely, in case its significance has been missed, that is more than the majority of 115 Conservative Members.
We have been accused of drafting a motion that embarrasses the Conservative party. It is embarrassing only because many Conservative Members agree with it. If they want to see it passed, they must vote for it. That may be politically embarrassing, but I can assure them that it will be nothing like as politically embarrassing as it will be in their constituencies, if they vote against the motion.
In case Conservative Members are too embarrassed to ask the questions, let me close by leaving the questions that the Secretary of State must answer when he responds to

the debate. We were told that the new system would be fairer. Where is the fairness in the way that the system has hit the cases that I have quoted and in the letters that I and my hon. Friends have received? We were told that the new system would target those in need. If those cases that I have quoted are not in need, then who is in need? We were told that the changes would help families with children. It is evident that the changes leave families with children worse off to the tune of large sums of money per week. We were told that the changes would increase incentives to work. The changes plainly penalise families on a low wage, pensioners with part-time earnings and youngsters starting at the very bottom of the labour market.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the major structure of the housing benefit system would remain substantially the same. The letters that I have received and the cases that I have quoted provide a devastating case as to why that substantial structure of the new system is totally unsound. Tonight the House must vote to take apart that new structure and to rebuild it.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'recognising that social security spending has risen by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and now totals almost £48½ billion, and that spending on housing benefit last year amounted to over £5 billion and went to over 7 million, or 1 in 3, households in this country, commends Her Majesty's Government for its determination to tackle the complexities and unfairnesses of the old system.'.
So far, the debate has concentrated, as does the motion, on one aspect of social security changes—housing benefit. Before I respond and tell the House about the Government's proposals, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) legitimately asked, my hon. Friends will want me to remind them of some of the substantial achievements that are embodied in the new benefit system. I shall briefly do so.
It is a simpler system, that people can understand. It gives more help for most disabled people and most families with children. In terms of fairness, in many ways it is a major improvement in respect of incentives. Hon. Members will remember the old family income supplement system, whereby a family could be better off earning £75 than £150. The perverse incentives of the old system have entirely gone. The new system has also ended the runaway spending under an abused single payments system, part of the unemployment trap. That was utterly unfair to those m work.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Moore: I shall give way in a second.
The major achievements meant that there would be inevitable changes and that, as hon. Members have recognised, they would be controversial. That was especially true in relation to housing benefit.
Throughout the reform debates over the past few years, Conservative Members did riot believe that it was right—they expressed the view many times—to help as many as one out of three families with their housing costs. Therefore, since 1985, the Government have made it clear that we would tackle that. Ironically, in relation to what the hon. Member for Livingston said, the need for


structural reform of housing benefit was the social security matter of greatest consensus throughout all parts of the country.
Despite what the hon. Member for Livingston said, the Green Paper and subsequent debates produced little disagreement with the structural proposals. I recognise the point that was made. Today's debate and the criticisms are about the effects on some people at the point of the change—I recognise that individuals have been mentioned—but I stress the key point that they are all individuals above the income support level.
It is important briefly to consider the reason for the general agreement that existed on the need for reform of the old system. Two things were critically wrong with it. First, it was hideously complicated—no hon. Member who had constituency surgeries over the years, let alone those who sought to help claimants, would deny that—and, secondly, it was indefensibly unfair.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Housing benefit was a Tory scheme.

Mr. Moore: I shall refer to that point in a moment.
The worst feature of the system was the unfair way in which it operated against people in work. For those out of work and on supplementary benefits, quite properly the old system paid 100 per cent. of rent. For those not on supplementary benefit but with similar incomes, the calculations were based on 60 per cent. of rent. We were in a position that we all knew was ridiculous—someone was much worse off simply because his income came from work, while his neighbour's came from benefit.
Faced with such unfairness or injustice, what can a Government do? [Interruption.] That is precisely what we would expect from the Opposition. A Government can do what Opposition Members did when they were in office—nothing at all, because any change would provoke a storm. It is no good Opposition Members pretending that, when they were in office, they did not know about the fundamental unfairness in the problem. They knew about the problems.
In 1976, the Supplementary Benefits Commission highlighted the inequality between the treatment of those in work and those on benefit. It pointed out to the then Government—the Labour Government—that 400,000 families were receiving less than they were entitled to. Faced with the complicated choice between asking for help with housing and approaching their local authorities and social security offices, they made the wrong choice. That was an outrage that the Labour Government ignored. They accepted it and did nothing to tackle fundamental reform.
This Government were not prepared to ignore the problem. The reforms of 1983 and 1986 have got the structure right. What that means—most outside observers accept this—is that people in work, or out of work, and with the same characteristics or level of income, will receive the same level of help. That must be right, and it is a major achievement. The Opposition funked reform, but my right hon. and hon. Friends, rightly, would have wished me to do what I have been doing in the past few weeks—listening carefully to them. They expect the Government to watch carefully and to monitor the changes. [Interruption.] I recall that not too long ago we

had debates about the social fund and one or two other issues. The changes about which we were talking affect 8·5 million citizens—not simply those changes we are addressing today, which only affect those above income support level.
My right hon. and hon. Friends would expect me to listen carefully, and they have used Parliament and information from their surgeries to draw my attention to problems. They and I would not be surprised if, in the biggest structural change for 40 years, there were not some areas that merited not only concern but action. While they welcomed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important debate. I know that the whole House is anxious to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.

Mr. Moore: While the overall structural reforms and the many improvements that I have outlined have been welcomed, since the introduction of the new housing benefit scheme, hon. Members—particularly my hon. Friends—have raised a series of concerns about how some aspects of the scheme have worked in practice. I wish to respond to those concerns.

Sir Peter Hordern: The reform of social security is not only long overdue but wholly welcome, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated. The issue causing concern among some hon. Members is housing benefit. It is the Government's policy to encourage local authorities to increase the return on their assets by increasing rents. That places an unconscionable strain on those who have been accustomed to housing benefit but who, because of the £6,000 limit, will no longer receive it. Will my right hon. Friend address himself to that particular point?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I am moving to that point.
I wish to respond to hon. Members' concerns in a number of ways, which I believe recognise the most serious difficulties experienced at the time of the change over. The issue that has been most often mentioned—my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) mentioned it again—in public discussion of the new housing benefit scheme is the capital rule. Most people accept the need to take capital into account and to have some limit. The problem is a difficult one, even given that general agreement.
None of us wishes to discourage people from saving, yet it is clearly wrong that the taxpayer should be expected to pay the rents and rates of people who have some capital and could be expected to draw on it. The question is what the level should be before they turn to their fellow citizens. I recognise that the £6,000 limit in particular has been the cause of concern. I am responding to those concerns today by increasing the limit to £8,000. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend is aware that some of us have been critical not of the principle but of the detail of the reforms. Is he aware, therefore, how we appreciate the way in which he has responded to the advice of his loyal friends, which is particularly wise given that the official Opposition are hopelessly ineffective? What would the capital disregard be today if the figure of £6,000 in the Green Paper of 1985 had

Mr. Moore: If the figure had been indexed up to today's prices, it would be £6,500. In that regard, the increase that I have just announced is substantial. It will bring considerable extra help—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Minister saying that, with all the wealth of expert advice that was available to him before these changes, he was incapable of foreseeing the suffering and anxiety that his proposals would cause?

Mr. Moore: No. I am saying that the Government are responding to the very sensible pressures that my hon. Friends and others have put on us to examine the position properly. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.

Mr. Moore: The increase will bring considerable extra help to a further 100,000 people. It will be effected by a change in the regulations, about which we shall quickly consult local authorities so that it can come into effect as soon as possible. It will cost £30 million.
There is a second question concerning capital where I believe that a change is merited. Under the new regulations, a person entering a care home is excluded from income support from the moment that they become resident if their former home is worth more than the capital limit.
The thinking behind the change is sound. The old system was wide open to abuse by those—perhaps the families of claimants—who made little effort to sell the home, while the taxpayer paid large sums to cover the care home fees. In one instance, the property remained unsold for 10 years.
The new regulation is too inflexible, and we must have regard for the genuine difficulties that some elderly people have faced. I cannot return to the previous position of laying the taxpayer open to exploitation, but I propose to relax the regulation to allow people six months in which to dispose of their property. In exceptional circumstances of genuine difficulty, that time could be extended. Such judgments will be for adjudicators, subject to the usual appeals procedures. The regulations will be introduced soon, but local offices can make payments as though this relaxation had been in force since 11 April.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Andrew Bowden: rose—

Mr. Moore: I should like to make one or two further points, which the House might like to hear, but I shall give way once more.

Mr. Bowden: I am deeply disturbed that, if I have understood my right hon. Friend correctly, although he is increasing the basic capital figure from £6,000 to £8,000, he is not altering the basic tariff. If he will not alter the figure of £3,000 at which full housing benefit would become applicable, a pensioner who has £6,000 saved and receives only a state pension will lose over £8 per week. I believe that to be completely wrong.

Mr. Moore: I shall not give way again—[Interruption.]—because if my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will listen until I have finished, they might be pleased to hear what I am about to say.
The House will know that we have already acted so as to ensure that where, for example, a wife has to leave the marital home because the marriage has broken down, she will not be excluded from benefit.
These measures are important but are not in themselves sufficient to deal with the difficulties of which we are aware, and which hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Livingston, has raised. There is a group of people on quite low incomes and without significant capital who have lost largish sums in housing benefit because of the interaction of various parts of the new scheme.
One important factor has been ending most local authority discretion to run different schemes of housing benefit. That decision was right. It cannot be fair that in different parts of the country different rates of benefit should be paid and different rules applied. That had to end as part of the reforms, although, of course, we have left it to local authorities to maintain the most widely used discretion in respect of war pensioners and war widows. Other losses have occurred—for example, through ending the old housing benefit supplement. We think it right to ease the transition in such cases.
We do not think it right to compensate for those increases in rents introduced to coincide with the new housing benefit scheme, nor increases in rates. That would cut across our firm purpose to increase local authority accountability. But we intend to offer transitional help to those significantly affected by the changes to the scheme, including the ending of local authority discretion.
I propose to make good those housing benefit losses in excess of £2·50 per week arising from the changeover to the new scheme which have affected pensioners, disabled people, families with children and lone parents. We estimate that perhaps 300,000 people will benefit from this. We will be spending an extra £70 million in this way.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Did I understand the Secretary of State to say that this applies to people on housing benefit supplement, or does it apply more widely?

Mr. Moore: This covers those above the income support level who may have suffered by more than £2·50, if they are pensioners, disabled people, families with children and lone parents.
Parliamentary approval for the payments under this new scheme will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure up to £25 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.
The payments will be made by my Department through a new central unit, in order to provide the quickest and most efficient response to cases. Clearly it will be some weeks before such a unit can be properly operational, but I can give the House an assurance that the transitional arrangements will deal with the relevant losses to the vulnerable groups which have occurred since 1 April. That includes people with capital of less than £8,000 who have been affected by the £6,000 limit which has been in operation since 1 April. In other words, any payments will be backdated to 1 April.
This proposal meets the concern which has been emerging at constituency surgeries. These transitional arrangements are announced and the money will be for—[Interruption.]—the year in question and, obviously, it


will be kept under continuing review. [Interruption.] It will be kept under continuing review, because people's circumstances change.
This proposal meets the concern which has been emerging at constituency surgeries. It is that, despite the substantial improvement in the structure of housing benefit, the change for people who are used to a particular level of help is too abrupt; and that we must act to stop losses which for some represent too high a proportion of their total income. I am confident that we have found the means to tackle that effectively.
The social security reforms which came into effect a few weeks ago have created a fairer, simpler and better targeted system than anything seen previously. Overall, the majority of claimants will be better off or will get the same as before. I have announced today an increase in the capital limit, a relaxation of the rules covering the disposal of properties and, most important, a scheme of transitional help for those who have faced large losses.
The effect of the package of measures will add a further £100 million to the largest ever social security budget. Nothing could better show this Government's commitment to those who need to look to us for help. Because of our extremely successful management of the economy we have been able to respond to the tune of £48 billion a year. I commend the amendment to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call Back-Bench Members, I again make a plea for brief speeches.

Mr. James Lamond: I have just heard one of the most remarkable speeches in my 18 years in this House. It is rather sad to see a Secretary of State signing his own death warrant. I do not think that he can last very much longer, even after the concessions which have been wrung from him and the Cabinet in the past few days.
It surprised me to hear the Secretary of State set the new capital limit at £8,000 without mentioning the £3,000 bottom limit which has already been drawn to his attention. The effect on those whom he was trying to help will nevertheless be severe. He tried to say that many more people have benefited than have suffered from these changes. That is hard to understand, because I have received many letters from my constituents, as have many other hon. Members. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of conversation on both sides of the House. I ask for a fair hearing for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lamond: Yes, I understand why conversations are going on: I am sure that Conservative Members are trying to work out the statement, as we are. It is rather unfortunate—this is a criticism that we can make of the procedures of the House—that the last people to receive any information about such a statement are those who are expected to debate it. Early in the Secretary of State's speech I observed copies of the changes being handed round the Press Gallery, so they have an advantage over us.
Many of my constituents have written to me who cannot bring themselves to believe that the changes will have the effect that they are having. They are angry with their local council because they think that it is responsible for the changes, and that elderly people and mothers who have had to go to hospital, a nursing home or a council home for the elderly are being told that they must sell their homes to finance the cost of staying in that old person's council flat. They do not understand that, and cannot bring themselves to believe it.
I wish to cite one instance from my constituency, because we cannot debate this matter on cold statistics. I know that Conservative Members would like to debate this on percentages and not individual cases, but it is of individual cases that we speak. The changes affect individual people, many of whom are the poorest in our society.
A male constituent works full time as a butcher. He has one son aged two and three daughters between six and 10. This case is authenticated by the chief executive of my local authority. That man's net earnings, working full time as a butcher in Oldham, are £79·02. Although this point does not directly affect what we are discussing today, I would like Conservative Members to take note of that man's wages. We have often heard those hon. Members speak of cutting wage levels, and say that people are pricing themselves out of jobs. If they tried to live on £79 per week take-home pay, with four children, they would have to curtail their lifestyles a little—and so would I.
In addition to the £79, that man has child benefit for his four children of £29, and family income supplement of £25·70. That is a total income of £133·72. Under the new scheme, his family income supplement is replaced by family credit. That amount is increased from £25 to £39. I suppose that he is counted as one of the 5 million or 6 million people who are considered to be gainers under the new system, as against the 1 million losers.
However, if we look at it a little further, instead of having a rent rebate of £22 against his rent of £34, which involves him paying a rent of £11·81, under the new scheme he does not receive any rebate at all. His rent is going up to £37·23, and the cash available to spend on himself, his wife and four children is reduced from £122 to £110. He is £12 a week worse off. In addition, he has lost his three daughters' entitlement to free school meals, which amounts to £9·75 a week. His total available income is now £100·04.
I ask Conservative Members to place themselves in the circumstances of that family. That is my only reason for intervening in the debate. If the Minister is saying that he will not allow rent rebates to be reduced so drastically, I will welcome that alleviating action. However, I am concerned if he sets a time limit, because that family will. not be able to improve their circumstances so as to make up the loss of £20 from an income of £120. That man and his wife are very worried by that loss of £20.
I know that many Conservative Members are reasonable people, and I cannot understand how they sleep at night. When people such as this man come to my constituency surgery, weeping about what is happening to them—ordinary decent people, trying to maintain a home and look after a family, working hard but having nothing to spare for holidays or anything of that kind—I find it difficult to sleep at night, and I would if I were a Conservative Member. Whether Conservative Members like it or not, and whether they table clauses saying that


they do not agree with such moves, they are responsible because they support such moves in the Lobby with their votes, so I cannot understand how they can go home and sleep soundly in their beds.

Sir Giles Shaw: I am not prepared to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), although he speaks with great conscience on this matter, in seeking to make such an attack on the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this debate. As the first Conservative Member to be called, I must tell my right hon. Friend how appreciative I am of the changes he has made. I will not use the word "thanks" to my right hon. Friend, because this is not an occasion for that word. What we have received from my right hon. Friend is more than that. We have had a rapid and sensitive appreciation that, at least in the housing benefit provisions, anomalies have occurred—I do not want to use the word "anomalies" again—which need some rapid changes.
Two things flow from that. First, I believe that my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled respond to the pressures that are put upon them by members of the public, by members of our party and, no doubt, by Opposition Members. That responsiveness is a welcome sign.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend has rightly shown the capacity to exert political judgment, when faced with a difficult situation. That is not to say that my right hon. Friend has embarked upon a course in which we shall not support him. Of course we will. Indeed, we fought the election on the reform of many of the structures which have been in place in the social fabric of this land for over 40 years. That is what the electorate expected this Government to do, and that is what we expect my right hon. Friend to do in handling the major issues of social security, which he has only inherited in recent months.
I advise my right hon. Friend that there will be others among his colleagues in the Cabinet—I refer to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—who would do well to look at the way in which my right hon. Friend has responded to what happens when implementing major changes. I trust that my right hon. Friend recognises that this is not a matter for U-turns, grovelling or anxiety, or even for being particularly outrageous in turning the existing policy. However, the art of the possible and the art of the practicable are two of the essential ingredients of a successful Government. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done, although there are two other points which I wish to make.
First, while recognising in the case of housing benefits that the anomalies created were both active in their expression and urgent, that could also be the way in which many other aspects of the major changes that my right hon. Friend has introduced will ultimately give witness. I am a little worried that, in seeking to respond to this and to the other changes announced today, as he has done, he may give the impression that, wherever the shoe happens to pinch, there will be an immediate response.
In the debate three weeks ago, I urged my right hon. Friend to monitor the implementation of the changes. I said that if the Government failed in their commitment to ensure that the majority of people in need will benefit from those changes, my right hon. Friend should amend the

necessary regulations. What he should not consider tonight is seeking to offer a panic result to substantial and sudden pressure.
The social security benefit changes represent a watershed in social policy, to which this Government are committed and which are endorsed by the electorate, alongside the changes in education and local authority financing. The changes are a fundamental shift in policy. There will be difficulties, and we as Conservative Members of Parliament will have to bear the brunt. I believe that we can do that in the knowledge that there are occasions when it is right to make changes. This is one such occasion. There may be others in due course. Our task is to support the principle upon which we were elected. I am glad to support my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In having to deliver his speech this afternoon the Secretary of State does, in one sense, deserve sympathy from all quarters of the House. As his hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has just said, if political sense prevailed within the Government, this was bound to be an occasion when decisions would be taken which would offer some concessions to Tory Back Benchers in order to try to quell the revolt. It must have been galling to read in the press at the weekend that even allowing for the fact that the Secretary of State would be making a speech that would provide some relief—if not sheer relief—for his Back Benchers he was still having to fight a battle to make the speech in the first place. That does not say much for the support that he has from the closest quarters within the Government. I am glad to see at least one Conservative Back Bencher nodding in acquiescence of that view. However, I shall not name him.
I return to the opening of the debate, when we were reminded by both the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and the Secretary of State of the purpose of the social security reviews when they were first set up, with public hearings and so on. One of the principal objectives for which this Government and the previous Administration were aiming was simplification. Following the further rehash that has been announced this afternoon, welcome though aspects of it are, there can be no doubt that the Government are steadily retreating further and further from the simplification that they claim is one of the most welcome hallmarks of the system. They are doing so—

Mr. Moore: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kennedy: The Secretary of State is disagreeing with me. He should go to the nearest social security office and ask the staff there, who have to cope with what has already been pushed through, how with declining staff resources they will cope with the further changes that have been announced, some of which have been backdated to the beginning of this month, when the original changes were implemented.
The consistent simplification that the Government have always claimed has been departed from, and correctly so, given the changes and the policies that they were going to implement until their Back-Bench revolts of the past few days and weeks.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
The Secretary of State should be under no illusions. He is departing from that principle. I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Beith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that one change that the staff are having the greatest difficulty in explaining in this now complex situation is that a miner's widow who receives concessionary coal does not have that counted against housing benefit, but a miner's widow who, because her house has been converted by the council to central heating, gets cash in lieu of concessionary coal, has that amount counted against her benefit and it is reduced? My hon. Friend recognises the problems of the staff, but can he imagine trying to explain that to a miner's widow?

Mr. Moore: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moore: I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Opposition Members should remind themselves that it is the local authorities which handle housing benefit, not, as they in their confusion seem to suggest, my DHSS officers.

Mr. Kennedy: The Secretary of State referred to regulations. The argument that I have just made is that social security officers, who, as the Secretary of State is aware—after all, amongst other things, he is the Secretary of State for Social Services—are having to carry through the bulk of most the social security changes will, like the local government system, have to react to some of the changes that he has announced this afternoon.
The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) gave was excellent, though sad, but it again reveals that this great, sweeping simplification has given rise to further crazy anomalies which are thwarting the very purpose of the Government's plans.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: I give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As the North of Ireland has to endure these terrible housing benefit regulations, it is only right that the Secretary of State should be accurate. Housing benefit is not administered by local authorities in the North of Ireland. It is administered by a different agency.
In relation to what the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has been saying, one problem about the legislation is that those who understand it cannot explain it, and those who can explain it do not understand it.

Mr. Kennedy: I am not sure that that point is as much for me as it is for the Secretary of State, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it.
I now deal with the specific areas with which the Secretary of State dealt. First, on the question of capital disregard, which has caused so much difficulty and so much revolt on the Conservative Back Benches and in other quarters of the House, I refer to the position that

prevailed when the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) served at the DHSS. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in his place at the moment, although he was here for the Secretary of State's speech.
When at the DHSS, the hon. Gentleman considered the alternative of notional interest, which, in a sense, has now almost been conceded by the transitional arrangements which the Secretary of State announced today, in preference to an absolute cut-off point for capital disregard. Notional interest is the assumed interest that could be earned from any capital owned by a benefit recipient.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said in an intervention during the Secretary of State's speech, when he referred to the continuing concern over tariff income and the £3,000 level. Given that, prior to this afternoon, above £6,000 there would have been a total loss of housing benefit, surely the DHSS would have done better to stick to the scheme or regime that was preferred by one of its previous Ministers.
In a recent interview in The Guardian the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green recalled that, when he was a Minister examining this matter,
DHSS civil servants put forward two alternatives. One was a simplification along the lines of supplementary benefit, with a cut-off for claimants whose savings reached £3,000. The other involved deducting only the notional interest from savings when benefit was paid.
The article then said that the hon. Gentleman had
examined Treasury costings and found no difference in implementing either scheme.
The hon. Gentleman was reported as saying
Civil servants were determined to introduce the first alternative because it was much easier to administer, and I had to fight them all the way.
It is much easier for an official just to cut off the benefit once savings reach such a figure than to work out the interest on savings and then deduct it from housing benefit payable.
If that was the experience of someone who until fairly recently was a Minister at the DHSS, one can only wonder why, when the matter was re-examined by the present incumbents prior to the full implementation of the social security and housing benefit changes, Ministers chose to go down the path that they did with regard to the cut-off point for capital disregard, which, in turn, has led them into this afternoon's partial retreat, with all the resultant administrative considerations.
The second point with which I wish to deal is the disposal of capital income, or assumed capital income, and the fact that discretion will be given to local officers, or adjudicating officers, to waive the rules, as presently constituted, in exceptional circumstances. It is extremely welcome that the Secretary of State has bowed to the understanding that there should be a degree of local and regional flexibility. However, in recognising the correctness and the acceptability of that approach, it is somewhat puzzling why he does not recognise the need for flexibility in the third aspect of the changes that he announced this afternoon—those relating to housing benefit itself.
Even given the assurance—if it can be called that; after all, it is a transitional assurance—about what would happen if someone lost over £2.50 per week as a result of the overnight change in the housing benefit regime in the four categories that the Minister outlined in his speech, we should not be to sanguine about what the Government are doing. It is a transitional arrangement to achieve what was understood to be the Government's objective before the Secretary of State got to his feet this afternoon. It is a


transitional arrangement that may head off a partial revolt in his party—which may have been anticipated—but it will not deflect the Government from their pursual of the policy that has caused so much anguish and anxiety among hon. Members of all parties.
For housing benefit, it would surely have been better to announce a much higher earnings disregard and a lower marginal tax rate—the 65 per cent. taper—at the beginning, than to have a transitional scheme of this sort now. I appreciate that there was movement in that direction in the Minister's speech today, but surely it would have been better to do as I have suggested, both in the conception and in the delivery.
The disabled and the severely disabled stood to lose much as a result of the social security changes. The disabled premium has to an extent been an over-simplification in response to the myriad single payments and different benefits for which a severely disabled person could qualify. Now, however, by going too far in the opposite direction, the Government have left great anomalies.
The Minister singled out the disabled as one of the four categories, and the emphasis that he put on helping them was welcome, but the Government must concede that if their concern and convictions were as strong as they claim in this area of social policy they would have been slightly more anxious to implement fully many of the changes heralded by the passage of the Disabled Persons' Rights Act 1987 than they have been. From the Report stage of that Bill and from social services questions it has become all too clear that changes in line with the provisions of that legislation have been the result of haranguing by Opposition Members rather than of genuine progress initiated by the Government. The changes on disability in today's announcement must be seen in that context.
Finally, the Minister was at pains to talk about the need to encourage greater incentives by the changes to social security. Single parents are among those who will suffer most from those changes, even after today's announcement, and they will suffer because of the incentives with which the Secretary of State was concerned. Before the changes of 11 April, single parents were assessed as a couple for the purposes of housing benefit. I accept that there is now an additional premium of just over £8, but the 65 per cent. taper for withdrawal will leave many single parents signficantly worse off in low-paid employment than they were on state benefit.
Even after the alterations to the scheme, that was not the original intention or objective of the Government. So when the Secretary of State assesses the effects of the transitional provisions that he has made today I hope that he will pay particular attention to single parents, whom he highlighted in his speech and who have suffered so much as a result of the initial changes. I suspect that they will continue to suffer, even allowing for the transitional provisions.
In conclusion, we should not allow the concessions—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member has already said "Finally".

Mr. Kennedy: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so obviously hanging on my every word.
The concessions at the margins that these changes bring about should not allow us to obscure what is happening at the heart of the tax and benefit policy of the Government.

This policy has been clear from the trio of debates that we have had this week. On Monday we discussed the poll tax, which will hit some of the poorest because of its flat-rate system. On Tuesday we debated the tax-cut provisions, which give the most to some of the most affluent people in society. Today, we have heard of a welcome change in housing benefit which arose because the poorest would have suffered from the alteration in Government policy that was implemented from the beginning of April.
Taking those three components together, it is clear that the rich are still benefiting most and the poor are receiving something only because of extreme pressure from both sides of the House. That is not a moral pursuit of policy, and it will not command our support in the Division Lobby tonight.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: During the debate on the Social Services Green Paper in 1985, I urged the Government to consider the implications of the proposed housing benefit changes, saying that I could not believe that the Government really intended to penalise 4 million pensioners.
In the context of the motion before us the House should look back briefly at what has happened to housing benefit since April 1983, when changes were made which meant that 1,150,000 pensioners suffered losses and 120,000 lost all housing benefit. In November 1984, 1,200,000 pensioners lost further entitlement and another 210,000 lost all housing benefit. In November 1985, a further 1,470,000 pensioners lost benefit and an additional 270,000 lost all entitlement. In April 1987, 2,600,000 pensioners lost some housing benefit entitlement, with a further 60,000 losing all entitlement. In April 1988, about 2,570,000 pensioners lost some entitlement and 750,000 lost all their entitlement to housing benefit.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend must be aware that in 1978 the Government were spending £1·24 billion on housing benefit. By 1987–88 that figure had risen to £5·2 billion—a colossal sum. Should that figure have been bigger?

Mr. Bowden: If my hon. Friend will listen to my arguments, I am sure that he will fully understand the position.
My hon. Friends and the Government sometimes pose a basic question: why should taxpayers' money be used when people have what some would describe as substantial savings? On the face of it, that is a convincing point, but let us consider the position again.
The generation of pensioners that I am discussing is the wartime generation, which made tremendous sacrifices and suffered great hardship. Those pensioners proved themselves to be one of the great exceptional generations in the history of the British nation. They were a generation that in most cases had little or no opportunity to buy property, and every pound that they saved represented a real struggle, a struggle that today's younger generation cannot contemplate or understand.
The House will be aware that, as each general election goes by, more and more younger Members join the House and fewer and fewer older Members remain. Therefore, fewer Members remember world war 2, lived through it, and faced the sacrifices that went with it. Therefore, what


that earlier generation suffered—the loss of life and the number of war widows—is no longer fully appreciated by the House.
That wartime generation, unlike almost any other, prepared for its retirement. What happened to those who scrimped and saved and gave up holidays, smoking and drinking to manage to save a little? Those people retired in the 1960s and early 1970s and, although they would not be rich, they believed that they would live in an era of relative peace and prosperity. In the 1970s and early 1980s, however, they found the value of their savings totally destroyed, largely as a result of Labour Government policies. I for one will never forgive them. At the time of those policies we declared that we recognised the problems faced by those people and that we intended that housing benefit should be some small compensation for the total destruction in the value of their savings.
Let us link those savings to the employment pensions that some, by no means all, of that generation had. In the 1960s and early 1970s the majority of people in that category retired on a non-inflation-proof employer's pension. The House will be aware that, when we compare the value of a 1960s and early 1970s pension with the pension today, it is virtually worthless. For that reason the circumstances of that generation are different from any other generation. That is why it is totally justified to use taxpayers' money to give some compensation to that group who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves on the financial breadline.
On many occasions we also said—how often have I listened to the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially when we were the Opposition—that we should give help to those with just a little bit above the state minimum. Sadly, we are not doing that to the extent that we should. The wartime generation saved. It was responsible and thrifty, but now it has been penalised.
I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled. On 23 March he sent me a letter in which he said:
The April changes are not cuts.
I wish he would tell that to the thousands of pensioners in my constituency. I wish he would tell that to the war widow who has £6,200 in savings and, as a result of the recent announcements, has lost £15 per week.
Let us consider the announcement that was made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that I have got it clear, but it is difficult for us to absorb the exact details and implications. If I have got it wrong, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me immediately. As I understand it, the announcement means that the maximum limit for capital will go up to £8,000. It will still mean, however, that if a person has £8,100—there will be many pensioners on the basic pension who have no other income or savings apart from that sum—he will lose benefit in excess of £10 per week. If people have savings of £7,900 we have a guarantee, as I understand it, that they will not lose more than £2·50 per week for one year. What will happen at the end of that year?
The Government must do a lot of hard thinking and there must be more revisions and changes. I must tell the Government and all my colleagues that this problem will not go away. Until all the British people believe that justice

has been done, we will, quite rightly, be showered with letters and cases will appear at our advice surgeries in ever-increasing numbers.
Let us consider further the implications of today's announcement. I have some rough figures on the information given that may not be exactly accurate, and I ask the indulgence of the House and the Minister. As I understand it, it is still true that a pensioner aged 65 with nothing other than the state pension and an occupational pension of £10 per week, together with savings of £8,100, will still lose £12 a week housing benefit. In other words, his entire occupational pension is wiped out and is of no use to him.
There are many changes still to be made. I congratulate the Government on the start that they have made and I give full credit where it is due. The Government must, however, do a lot more thinking regarding the implications of the recent changes.
I welcome this major step in the right direction, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that my original intention was to go into the Opposition Lobby, as I have done in the past. In view of what the Secretary of State has said, I hope only to abstain. I shall listen extremely carefully when my hon. Friend replies because I need some positive hope not just for one year, but for the future. We must ensure that we do not continue to neglect the pensioners.

Mr. Frank Field: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). During his speech I was reminded of a debate on procedural changes in the House, which was introduced by R. A. Butler. On that occasion he said that the Government would find it impossible in the House of Commons were it not for the thick Tory squires behind him. He then gently turned round to smile at them. One can understand why Mr. Butler did not become leader of the Tory party.

Mr. Cormack: Where are the squires?

Mr. Field: They have gone as well.
If the Government had 100 Members like the hon. Member for Kemptown, they would be in much greater difficulties than they have been in the past few days.
It is a convention of the House that if one intends to attack an hon. Member, one gives him notice. Therefore, I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer present, although I note that a message is now being sent out to get him. I shall speak extremely slowly until he arrives. I hope that it will not damage his future career if I say that today I thought he gave his best performance since becoming Secretary of State for Social Services. He can draw a moral from his performance: that, when defending the social security reforms, he goes down better with his Back Benchers if he comes to the House with a few hundred million pounds in his pocket. Perhaps in the next few weeks we shall see even better performances from him.
The difficulty that we face is that many of us had prepared contributions, but, having heard the Secretary of State, we are confused as to what he announced. Therefore, I suppose that we must also congratulate him on another score. So that we shall not continue to be


confused, the basis of my contribution will be some questions to the Minister. I shall be happy to give way as I go through so that we can be clear about the changes.
We are told that no one will be worse off by more than £2·50 a week. Does that include the 20 per cent. rates payment, or is that separate?

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): indicated assent.

Mr. Field: It is separate. That is one point that has been clarified. Later, perhaps the Minister can tell us why they hit on £2·50 a week.
That ties in with another question: what would have been the cost if full transitional protection had been offered to those in receipt of housing benefit? The group about which I wrote to the Prime Minister was covered by housing benefit supplement. That tells us something about the Government's guarantees on transitional arrangements. Prior to housing benefit we had a system of locally run housing rent rebates and allowances and a rate rebate scheme.
The Government brought in a new scheme. Under the old scheme, people qualified for supplementary benefit if their income was below the scale rate, plus their housing costs. Under the housing benefit scheme, the housing cost was transferred to the new scheme. Because state pensions were a few shillings above the level for supplementary benefit, many pensioners were floated off supplementary benefit but gained little or no help from housing benefit. Therefore, they were substantially worse off and were many pounds below the supplementary benefit poverty line.
In order to protect that group, the Government introduced housing benefit supplement. However, that was abolished a week before the new scheme came into existence. Until then all changes in housing benefit supplement had been made by the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. The week before the new scheme came into being, changes in housing benefit supplement were made by negative resolution. In other words, we did not have to debate them. The effect of the change was that people's incomes fell drastically in the first week but they did not qualify for benefit under the transitional arrangements because they were already regarded as having a lower level of income. Can the Minister of State tell us whether all those who previously received housing benefit supplement will be protected after they have made the first £2·50 additional rent payment?
What did the Secretary of State mean when he said that transitional arrangements will be kept under constant review? When challenged, he said that people's circumstances change. We know that. As their income rose, they would automatically be floated off the transitional protection. That would not alter the structure of transitional protection. We want to know whether the Government intend to buy votes tonight by giving transitional protection for a year. Will transitional protection remain until no one qualifies for it because increases in pensions and other benefits will have taken everyone beyond the qualifying levels for the amount of support that was announced by the Secretary of State earlier?
Those are questions to which we desperately need answers if we are to make sense of the debate as it progresses. Conservative Members do not like to hear the

case being put so bluntly, but we must pay them a compliment for the changes which are being brought about by the Government. The last few hundred years of English history show that one of the greatest struggles has been by the poor trying to get money from the rich. Since 1979 we have seen an attack by the rich on the poor. Conservative Members do not like it. We see cuts in the income of people who are on income support—

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Can the hon. Gentleman assist me? How does one define the rich, the poor, and wealth?

Mr. Field: I advise the hon. Gentleman, if he has not done so already, to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knows exactly who is rich and exactly who is poor because he has been cutting the level of income of many poor people.
Over the past few weeks, we have been debating cuts not in the rate of increase in benefit but in rates of benefit. Despite the effect of today's statement, many of our constituents will suffer a cut in benefit each week of at least £2·50, plus a 20 per cent. rate payment, plus, for some, the loss of any increase in benefit because they were protected by the transitional arrangements. That is what I mean by the fundamental change that the Government have brought about. We must take back the message to the country so that people understand more clearly next time they vote than they did last time.

Mr. John Redwood: The review of social security rightly began by asking the fundamental question, where does poverty lie? In a period when pensioners enjoy occupational pensions and often own their own houses, the inquiry discovered that poverty is now concentrated largely on low-income families, on single-parent family groups and on the disabled, and that whereas 20 years ago pensioners retired just on the state pension and needed widespread recourse to additional benefits, they are no longer, on average, in the same predicament. It was important that the review, when implemented as a new benefit system, should recognise that fact. The new system rightly gave most of the increased resources to those most in need. That I welcome, and substantial amounts were put on the table with that in mind.
The second important point was that the implementation of the review should take place against the background of spreading economic prosperity so that money was available to provide additional resources for the benefit system. How much I welcome the fact that our economic success means that in this year there will be £2,000 million extra going into welfare and almost £2,000 million extra going into health. So almost 3p of income tax has been allocated to increases in welfare payments. I compliment the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues on obtaining those resources while the Chancellor was still able to reduce tax rates across the board, particularly to help those on lower incomes out of the tax and benefit trap.

Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that 3·5 million people do not earn sufficient to pay income tax in the first place, even under the Chancellor's Budget? They will not benefit at all. Will he also comment on the fact that, as a precondition


of the introduction of the poll tax, everyone on housing benefit has to pay a 20 per cent. rates contribution, which means that everyone will suffer a 20 per cent. cut in housing benefit?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman forgets that all those on income support are compensated for the 20 per cent. of the rates they pay. He also forgets that the reason why some of those people are no longer in the tax net is that the Government have taken almost 2 million lower paid people out of taxation altogether and made a substantial improvement in their lifestyle because they no longer have to pay that tax.
What we have seen this afternoon and will see in the rest of the debate is an Opposition in complete confusion. They came here with speeches designed to attack small elements of the scheme which has rightly been amended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Those prepared speeches are vacuous and unnecessary, because the necessary fine tuning has been accomplished. We also find that Opposition Members are forced into defending every element of the old system.

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to vacuous and empty speeches, he should read his own words of a couple of weeks ago, when he denounced the Opposition for being so stupid as to call for changes in the regulations.

Mr. Redwood: It was my right hon. and hon. Friends who drew attention to some provisions that needed amending. I welcome their interventions and am delighted by my right hon Friend's response. The Opposition are now in the position of having to defend every element of the old system, knowing that, in practice, it was rotten. Have they forgotten the fact that, if claimants' circumstances changed, they had to apply week after week to establish whether they qualified for special individual payments? Did the Opposition like the system under which, if people were poor, they had to go to the benefits office and reveal many details time after time if they wanted one extra item that was beyond their budget?
Is it not much better that premiums should be built into benefit rates once and for all, so that, once people qualify, they may enjoy additional income without means testing? Do the Opposition wish to return to the means testers' charter which was the special payments system? Do they wish to return also to the situation that was common in the mid-1970s, when 200,000 people lived in families having to face marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates of more than 100 per cent and who, if they worked, were worse off by the extent to which they derived an income from that work? It was a crazy arrangement, and I welcome the system of family credit, which means that everyone in the family unit who wishes to return to work, now that jobs are more widely available, is not confronted by a tax and benefit withdrawal rate of more than 100 per cent., which is the economics of the madhouse.
Do Opposition Members want a return to the situation of 1975 and 1976 when, under a Labour Government, they were compelled frantically and frenetically to ask questions of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services about which benefit might be cut next, whether the Christmas bonus to pensioners would be withdrawn, and whether the real

value of incomes and savings risked erosion by the massively high rate of inflation? They had to ask also whether the value of benefits would wither away because inflation was then so high. The present Government uprate benefits in line with prices and keep inflation under control, so that people who have made provision for their future, and who have retirement savings, will enjoy the benefits of them.
The Opposition record on social services and welfare was atrocious. It was a story of cuts, and of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who boasted in the House that £1,000 million had been cut from the budgets because the IMF had forced him to do so; proudly claiming that there had been real cuts across the board in public spending. Not only do the present Government not make overall real cuts in public spending, but, because of the successful economy and their prudence in so many other areas, they manage to provide growing real resources for health and welfare—[Interruption.]
How much Opposition Members dislike the truth can be gauged by the level of their barracking when one tries to point out their record, which was so mean on the poor. Why is it that we have been compelled to increase benefits to the disabled by 80 per cent. in real terms? It was because the benefits of the mid-1970s were so mean that they were an affront to both Opposition and Government Members. The Opposition would probably find it impossible to rise in defence of the real levels of disablement benefit that existed in the mid-1970s, and they would condemn the Government if all they had done was preserve those real levels and not allow the disabled to benefit from the country's growing prosperity.
I am delighted to support a system which means that no longer will 400,000 families have to face the impossible task of working their way through the complex system to secure the benefits to which they are entitled. I am delighted to defend a system that provides people with an incentive to work, to provide for themselves, and to defend an economic policy that has delivered a 21·5 per cent. improvement in real living standards and incomes for those on half average earnings. That is true welfare policy in an economy that works; an economy that produces the goods and which rewards people across the scale.
In a recent poll, people asked about Labour party policy said that they did not deny that the Opposition would like to see benefits increased, but did not believe that Labour would ever be able to deliver the goods and to afford the benefit increases that they wanted to see. This Government not only want to see benefits increasing for those in most need, but they produced those benefits. They are a Government who deliver the goods and who have increased the prosperity of all the people.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I shall be brief because I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. I associate myself with most, if not all, of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). He is a proven fighter on behalf of pensioners, and I pay tribute to him.
Every Member of Parliament has a right and a duty to bring to the House the benefits of his or her constituency experiences. Their sum total must contribute to the overall breadth of knowledge on which the House draws when


debating and passing legislation. Unfortunately, today we are discussing the effects of a fait accompli—the new social security legislation which has caused such misery and suffering since 11 April.
Before coming to the House, I was a councillor in my constituency and, before that, chairman of my local community council and tenants' association. Therefore, I have been involved in public life for more than 10 years, but I have never known such desperation as that seen since 11 April. I have received reports from housing offices within my constituency which have witnessed the most distressing scenes as senior citizens have broken down in tears when informed of cuts in their housing benefit.
If any section of the community deserves our support, it is the present generation of senior citizens. They came through depressions, fought and won for us the second world war, rebuilt the country after that war, and played a major role in its economic recovery.
I remind the Government also that, along with us, they encouraged that generation to provide for the future and to be thrifty. We are seeing that same generation now being penalised by the Government for their thriftiness and sense of responsibility. The changes in housing benefit are causing hardship, with 0·75 million pensioners losing all entitlement, while another 2·5 million will have their housing benefit reduced. If the changes announced today will help in that situation, they will be welcome—but I submit that they will give too little, too late.
I make no apology for citing the specific case of an elderly couple in the Castlemilk part of my constituency. They are both 73 years of age and the husband has a works pension amounting to £33 weekly for industrial deafness. Before the changes, the couple paid rent and rates of £5·69 per month. Now they hve to pay £98 per month, with no increase in their income; they must find from somewhere an extra £90 a month. The main reason for that change would seem be that the husband's works pension is now included in the calculation, whereas before it was regarded as compensation for a medical condition. Perhaps that is the worst example I have encountered, but there are many others where housing benefit cuts have resulted in a dramatic decrease in senior citizens' total weekly income.
I do not believe that the Government Benches are full of evil men; many of them have a social conscience, in the tradition of one-nation Tories. I appeal to those Conservative Members who do not like what is happening to join us in the Lobby tonight. That way, the Government will realise that they cannot continue along the path of social injustice. It would be easy for us on these Benches to fall into the trap of allowing the Government to commit electoral suicide, as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said, but we must try to change their approach by vigorous opposition. We look for further changes and moves towards helping senior citizens and other sections of the community, and I ask all fair-minded Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Many of us, while canvassing in our constituencies at election time—or, indeed, in our surgeries—have been faced with people complaining bitterly that they are unable to claim benefit of one sort or another because they are just on the wrong side of the threshold. Those same people are often able to point out others who live in the same road, or whom they

have known all their lives, who can claim benefit. They sometimes complain that those who have been profligate can claim benefit although they, who have been thrifty, cannot. To explain that position is one of the hardest tasks that a Member of Parliament can face.
The current reforms improve the position relating to income support. The threshold has been raised from £3,000 to £6,000, and Opposition Members should recognise that the people concerned are now better off. When it comes to housing benefit, however, there is no getting away from the fact that the position is substantially worse. I believe that we must make a fundamental choice. We can accept a system in which there is a cut-off point, wherever that cut-off point may be. Such a system will leave more resources for the really badly off, such as the disabled and families on low incomes, who have gained from the reforms.
The alternative, proposed by the Opposition in the Standing Committee, is universal benefit, much of which would go indiscriminately to the better-off. The corollary would be many people paying taxes on the one hand, and receiving money back inefficiently in benefits on the other. The losers would be the really needy.
I believe that it is far better to have a targeted system. If we believe in such a system, we must accept a threshold, with all the inequity that it implies. The original £6,000 capital limit may have been too low, and it is possible that the proposed £8,000 limit is also too low. We must recognise, however, that wherever the level had been set, we would have received exactly the same complaints from those on the wrong side of it. If the limit had originally been set at £10,000 or £15,000, we would have been told that a nest egg of £15,000, in this age of generous redundancy payments and lump sums, is not very much.
Before Opposition Members become carried away by their own self-righteousness, it is worth remembering that under the last Government, the threshold for the main benefits was below even the old £3,000 limit that obtained until these reforms. It is also a fact that many who are now on the wrong side of the new £8,000 limit are paying far less tax than they were before, far less than they paid under the Labour Government and, indeed, far less than they would pay under the system of universal benefits proposed in Committee by the Opposition.
Under the old system, many who were able to draw housing benefit—many, but not all—were relatively well off. It is worth remembering in particular that since 1979 pensioners' incomes have grown, on average, twice as fast as those of the general population, and four times as fast as they did in the 1970s. Those people have often gained from the success of industry and the City, through their pension funds and their investments—institutions that the Opposition despise, deride and oppose.
On the other hand, I believe that the Opposition and many other critics of the reforms have ignored one of their true weaknesses. Although some of the worst of the poverty earnings traps have been partially dealt with for those on very low incomes, the trap remains very severe for many single people on low incomes, discouraging them from taking jobs. Perhaps, rather than concentrating on the relatively well-off, we should have concentrated on the groups who are not so well off and have no savings at all.
It seems to me illogical for people on the one hand to say that they are saving so that they need not be dependent, and on the other hand to demand benefits, although they have some savings—not all of which they


would be required to use up before gaining benefit. While all the fuss has been going on about a sector of society that is relatively well off—I emphasise the word "relatively"—critics have often ignored the fact that groups such as the disabled and low-income families are often substantially better off as a result of the reforms. That salient fact seems to have passed beneath the notice of the pontificating prelates and the Pavlovian pundits who automatically salivate with sneers of "obscene", "offensive" and "a war on the poor", whatever the Government's policy, without even bothering to find out the truth of the matter.
The fact is that any realistic system of social security will contain injustices and inequities. The safety net will inevitably catch those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, as well as those who are playing the system for all it is worth. It will also unavoidably miss out many who have been careful and thrifty, and who have savings. The Opposition are quite within their rights in trying to make partisan profit out of that, but our job on the Conservative Benches is to explain why the system has to be as it is, not to pretend that there is a simple, magic solution, or to add interest to the insults of our opponents.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am still amazed by the facility with which some Conservative Members can justify the way in which the simplification of the system has struck millions of people in Britain.
My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) cover the borough council of Ogwr in south Wales. The council sent out 17,000 forms for the introduction of the new system. Three thousand people did not return them, probably because they saw immediately that they were no longer eligible for benefit—although, to be fair to the council, it is to circulate those people again to check whether that is the case.
Of the 14,000 who returned the forms, on the first day on which they received their new rent and rates assessments 1,400 people contacted the council to say that there must be some mistake. In the first week, 6,000 took that course. The officials in the council, working rapidly, effectively and efficiently, checked all 6,000 claims and found that the increases were, unfortunately, exactly as they had been assessed.
If the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) thinks that this is just a criticism of small elements within the system, he must have both a small mind and a small heart to still think that when he hears of some of the effects of the system on individuals. I should like to mention four such cases this evening.
The first concerns a Mr. Williams, who lives in Bridgend. He is a pensioner, an ex-miner who suffers from silocosis and whose wife is an invalid. He fought in the Royal Navy during the second world war. He finds that, as a result of the Government's munificence and their simplification of the benefits system, he is £21·63 a week worse off, and he has to find the money out of a relatively small income.
In my village of Cefn Cribwr, a family receiving a disability benefit is £19 a week worse off. Down the road, in the village of Kenfig Mill, a disabled pensioner is £17 a

week worse off. A man receiving a special hardship allowance is now £14 a week worse off. In the borough, the worst case is of a family that is £25 a week worse off because of the new system.
If Conservative Members think that the simplification of the scheme is something to be lauded, they are mistaken, because over half the people in Ogwr borough council who were receiving housing benefit are now worse off as a result of the changes. The changes introduced today will mean that a few of them may be better off, but what is the promise for those who have been worst hit—those on disability pensions and benefits of one sort or another, and those who used to receive special hardship allowance but who have lost all that because of the loss of local authority discretion? We have been told that they will receive transitional help, but they will automatically be £2·50 worse off. They have lost that sum straight away.
Year by year, the situation will be reviewed. How will Mr. Williams, the pensioner in Bridgend, feel when he loses only £2·50 now, but with the prospect that next year, or the year after, he will suddenly have to lose the extra £20? It is not worth carrying on with such a reprieve. It would be far better if the Secretary of State had announced that, although the £2·50 will be taken, the Government will not take any more. Unfortunately, he did not make that promise.
What are we to say to people who are affected by the so-called tariff income rules? As far as I understood the announcement, nothing is to be done for them. They have savings of over £3,000 and they will be assessed on a fictitious rate of interest. Virtually no individual with savings of a few thousand pounds will be able to achieve that rate of interest, but benefit will still be based on it, and on a notional rate of income that is far above the real income that they will receive on the interest from their savings. Why could the Secretary of State not have announced that the real rate of interest will be used in assessing people for housing benefit? Why could he not announce that where people are saving to buy a car under the mobility allowance scheme, those savings will be excluded completely?
While some small but welcome reliefs have been announced, the simplification of the system has resulted in gross injustice for many millions of people. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to recognise that and, for example, to make the taper far less steep, he will get more complaints and letters about individuals who are suffering and we shall have more opportunities to bring this matter on to the Floor of the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was quite evident that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) had written his speech before the debate. He paid no attention to the substantial concessions and adjustments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) paid minimal attention to them, but not much more. It was high time that we sorted out the appallingly complicated system of benefits that had grown up haphazardly over decades. By and large, the Government have done an exceedingly good job. Inevitably, with such far-reaching changes in a system that has set rigid over many years, rough edges occurred. It is the duty and the privilege of the Government to listen to the views of Members of


Parliament who are closely in touch with their constituents and can discover what those rough edges are and pass on that information.
I come from an area where wages have never been high, but my thrifty constituents have always saved a high proportion of their incomes for their old age and to preserve their independence. The £6,000 cut-off point for housing benefit was too low, and I am delighted that it is to be raised to £8,000, with the extra money that will be needed to meet this change coming from the contingency reserve, which exists for exactly such a purpose.
I also feel strongly that if an elderly person or a couple find that they can no longer cope at home and have to move into a residential home, they should be given ample time to sell their home before having their benefits cut. Houses do not sell as rapidly in my part of the world as they do in the south-east. This is particularly important to us, and the change announced today will be very welcome; it is proof that the Government do not merely listen to what we have to say, but act on what they find in practice to be cases of hardship. I am grateful to them for so doing.

Mr. David Blunkett: When we hear speeches such as that made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), in which hon. Members say that they are near to their constituents; when we hear, as we have heard this afternoon, millionaires talking about what they understand by poverty, we are getting near the bone. When one represents an area where many people—not a few—are so desperately affected that the money taken from them prevents them from being able to buy food or to heat their homes, we know what poverty is about.
The problem with transitional help is that, by its very nature, it is transitional. It ebbs, and those who are now in a desperate plight and who will be helped by this afternoon's announcement will eventually face the same poverty and dilemmas at the end of the transitional period. We have been trying to relieve them of those problems through our debates and the pressure put on the Government over the past few weeks.
As the whole intention of these changes was to save £640 million, to transfer it to some of those who have spoken this afternoon and who have benefited so much from the tax reliefs for which Conservative Members voted, in the end those whom we represent will be the losers. This affects not only those who are on transitional arrangements, but those who face poverty and who are now coming into the system, and who will have to face the problems that we and the media highlighted to bring pressure to bear on the Government.
For these people, the problem will not go away. For example, in the city of Sheffield, one individual lost £24·70 a week. He will receive help now, but because it is transitional, it will run out and eventually he will lose the £24·70. There is also the example, of Lottie Green, a widow. Her husband deferred spending the money that they could have spent, to provide a little pension, and she will lose £11 a week. It will take longer for that loss to come into effect. The noose will be tightened gradually, but it will tighten, and that £11 will be lost.
Mr. and Mrs. Grant, who live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), will lose £14 a week. They will lose it more slowly.

People who are currently coming into the system will also lose. That is the reality of a situation that exists so that the Secretary of State for Social Services can eventually take hundreds of millions of pounds from the most needy in our community and pass it to the Treasury.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what mole or other informer he has in the Treasury or in the DHSS who informed him that what he prophesises will be the case? I know of no such expectation.

Mr. Blunkett: The information was given in the House by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 19 November last year and appears in Hansard. Those were the figures. A week last Monday, the Secretary of State for the Environment admitted to the House that so-called concessions on the poll tax rebate would be taken from housing benefit. This afternoon we have to ask, who in the system will be the losers and will have to pay for the concession that has just been announced?
Although we sympathise with those who have capital of more than £6,000, the capital sums are not the real issue. The real issue is that the difference in the tapering arrangements has hit so many widows and pensioners just above the income support level. Those people have scrimped and saved; they have done what the Government so often preach and then denounce when it is practised. Those people have scrimped and saved for their old age. They have put money aside and have taken part in the saving economy. Those people will lose. Those are the people on whose behalf we have spoken during the past few weeks and whom we shall continue to defend until the Government realise that at the next general election they will pay the price for their penny pinching.

Mr. John Greenway: The debate brings to a head the issues that have overshadowed Parliament since the general election last year. They are the issues of how best to care for the least well off in our increasingly prosperous society, and which party has the best policies to ensure that that care is provided.
The Government's record stands comparison with that of any previous Administration. We are spending more money in real terms on benefits for more people than ever before. The Government have had the courage and the capacity to take 40 years history of a welfare benefits system dominated by a bureaucracy which few people understood and which became increasingly discredited because of its inability to provide for those most in need, and to transform it into one which is fairer, more easily understood, more responsive and more likely to ensure lull entitlement. It has provided increased benefits for more than 5 million of our most needy families, especially those with young children, and the disabled. That is what the social security reforms have achieved.
Far from being censured, the Government should be congratulated on their bold approach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves congratulations too on his announcement today, which is most welcome. Some may feel that it does not go far enough, but no one can doubt that it represents an urgent and sensitive response to the unforeseen difficulties which have been highlighted in different ways by hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Greenway: No. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a point, he should wait to be called.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a particular point?

Mr. Greenway: No. I am not giving way.
Today's announcement also demonstrates that the clear undertaking given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled on 13 April —just two weeks ago—to monitor carefully the impact of the reforms has been fully honoured.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way. It would be unfair on hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate.
The real impact of recent events is clear. The Opposition have one policy—that is, to spend other people's money faster than the nation can ever hope to earn it. Day in, day out and week after week the House and the country are subjected to a nauseating catalogue of patronising promises which the Opposition and the nation know they will never be able to fulfil, in the increasingly unlikely event that they will ever get the chance to do so. I shudder to think what the cost to the country would be if all the promises that Opposition Members have made were honoured. Would they have been able to afford the modest increase announced today by my right hon. Friend? Their audacity in telling us how to spend the revenues and the wealth which their policies would destroy knows no bounds.
That despicable deception contrasts with the Government's proud achievements. In the past few weeks, 750,000 people on the lowest incomes have been taken out of tax. We have the lowest income tax rate for more than half a century. There has been the biggest ever increase in NHS budgets and £2 billion more has been spent on social security. We now have the highest ever social security budget. We are spending more on education, social services and fighting crime. Above all, a 15 per cent. pay rise for nurses has been fully funded by the Government without any cuts in other programmes.
Today's announcement that those at the margins who perhaps have lost out in a way which was not fully anticipated will be protected and is coupled with a further undertaking by the Secretary of State that the Government will continue to monitor the effects of these much needed reforms. No doubt that undertaking will be endorsed by the Minister of State.
Within a week there has been the biggest ever pay increase for nurses, more money for doctors and dentists and further concessions on social security benefits. All that shows that the Government have the compassion and the capacity to respond to the needs of society. People in this country trust us to do the right thing, and they know that their trust is well placed.
Perhaps the Government need to be nudged occasionally. I would say to Opposition Members that it is better to nudge the banker than to knock at the door of the bankrupt. I am not talking only about the money and the capacity to pay, but about the ideas and the radical approach of the Government and how that contrasts with the bankrupt ideas of the Opposition.
Those who doubt and have lingering concerns that the Government may have penalised too many, that more people than necessary may be losing benefit, should reflect that such concern and anxiety is clear evidence of the sea change in attitude towards Britain's prosperity in recent years. For too long people were willing to accept second best. How many times have we heard that it is all we can afford, that we have to tighten our belts? Even in the two or three years since the reforms were planned and announced, the growing evidence of increased prosperity has become more obvious. We must not shirk our responsibility to ensure that everyone in society shares in that prosperity. Despite my support for the Government tonight, I give my right hon. and hon. Friends notice that we must return to this matter in future because that is what the nation expects.
We must not be deflected from our objective of ensuring that the least well off, the sick and the disabled of the years ahead will be adequately supported and that, despite our increased wealth, we cannot afford the profligacy or recklessness that the Opposition would recommend. This motion stems not from the failure of this Government but from their success.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No.
The House should recognise that fact and reject the motion overwhelmingly.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the opportunity to make a few observations about the housing benefit changes. I come from a region with the highest rate of unemployment in western Europe, with the highest level of dependency of any region under the authority of this Government, and with the greatest degree of social and environmental deprivation to be found anywhere in these islands.
Against that background, I shall single out a few specific points. The first was referred to by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). It relates to the crucial differences between the way in which housing benefit is administered in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. I said earlier, somewhat facetiously, that one of the problems about the arrangements is that those who understand them cannot explain them, and that those who can explain them do not understand them. Those who work in the DHSS offices are under tremendous pressure. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the DHSS personnel. They have had a very short period within which to cope with the arrangements provided for in this enormously complex legislation, and this has caused enormous problems.
Those of us who have tried to give advice and help to people know, first, how difficult it is to claim benefit; secondly, how difficult it is to process the claim; and, thirdly, how difficult it is properly to assess the claim. That is already having an effect, and it will continue to have a long-term effect on housing benefit.
A new category of poor person has been created in recent years, and this is adding considerably to the problems. I am referring to those who are obviously in need or who have not made the effort that they should have made to provide for themselves and their families. They include those who, throughout their lives, have


worked hard, saved hard and looked after their families, their careers and their homes. They are being knocked by the housing benefit arrangements.
I shall call them, because I believe it to be a proper and accurate term, the lace-curtain poor, those who, all of a sudden, find that, despite the efforts that they have made throughout their lives, they cannot cope—a position in which they never envisaged they would find themselves.
Some of those who fall into the category of the lace-curtain poor are the elderly—people who put their pennies together and saved for the day when they might need that money, but who, when that day came, discovered that they were governed by a Government who said that their need was greater than that of the people from whom they were taking the money by reducing their housing benefit.
I am not referring just to the elderly. Younger people want to take pride in themselves and their families. For that reason they have saved, but now they are paying for it. I give as an example those who have been awarded industrial injuries pensions because of damage done to their persons. They are now losing housing benefit. It is not right that those in receipt of a pension of that kind, because of injuries they have suffered, should lose their housing benefit.
Another example is that of a lady who came to my surgery and told me that she was acting as a home help for three different people. She was playing an invaluable role in her local community, but because of her work she found that she was to lose £14·75. She said to me, "I have a choice. Either I can continue to act as a home help and lose that amount of money a week, which I simply cannot afford to lose, or I can decide no longer to act as a home help." Because of the decision that was forced upon her, three elderly people do not have the services of a very compassionate woman, of great humanity, who had served those old people so well. The social consequences affect not just those who lose housing benefit, but the rest of the community because of the domino effect.
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has an intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs. For that reason, I shall refer to one particular problem. The Secretary of State for Social Services said that, as a concession, elderly people who have to be committed to care will have six months in which to sell their homes. The Minister knows, because of his long experience in Northern Ireland, that in many areas of Northern Ireland houses cannot be sold; they cannot even be given away. An enormous problem will be created for some of the worst hit areas of Northern Ireland unless the Secretary of State looks closely at that problem.
In the broader sense, this is a tremendously harsh approach to adopt towards elderly people. The six months is a sentence—not a sentence of death, but a sentence of dependency. Elderly people will have six months, after which they will be unable to return to the little home that they have created over 40 or 50 years. They will have to depend on others for however long they live. The elderly deserve better than that.
There is one issue that relates specifically to Northern Ireland. It concerns a person who owns a small area of land. I am not talking about huge spreads; I am talking about the six, eight, 10 or 12 acres of land, most of which is rough, that provides no income. Is that to be subject to capitalisation? It was subject to capitalisation for supplementary benefit purposes. Is that land to be

capitalised and regarded as a source of income? If it is to be so regarded, the effects of the legislation will he even worse than I imagined.
I congratulate the Minister of State on thinking again about the threshold, and I commend him for responding, under pressure from his colleagues and others, to that point. I ask him, however, on the grounds of compassion and humanity, because of the deprivation that people will suffer, to think again and get rid of the iniquities and anomalies. The legislation will then be regarded as compassionate, not as something that cuts corners to the detriment of those who need the most help.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who speaks so movingly about his constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, Vie ho I think missed the first few words of his speech, will read it carefully in Hansard.
I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for his response. During the last three difficult weeks, a number of us have found ourselves on several occasions in the Opposition Lobby. I found myself appealing to my right hon. Friend on sight tests arid dental charges. During the last fortnight I found myself appealing in vain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. At least to some degree, I believe that this is third time lucky. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has responded promptly and properly not just to hon. Members, because we seek merely to articulate the concerns that people put to us, but to the deep need expressed and the real suffering that has been caused throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred to a new category of poor. I remember what was said in his speech on the Loyal Address by Sir John Nott when he was the Member for St. Ives. He said words to this effect: "The real poor of the 20th century are those without hope." Over the past few weeks, many people have felt deprived of hope.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his announcement. I hope that he will not think me churlish when I say that I do not think that he has gone far enough. I hope that he will still keep carefully under review the working of the new system. He will probably come to think—he is a sensitive man—that the £8,000 limit is not enough and that it should be £10,000. My right hon. Friend has also performed a signal service in recognising that that limit was not the be-all and end-all of the complaints and the sole creator of the suffering. I am glad to see him nod so vigorously in assent. Monitoring must be meticulous and continuous.

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cormack: I shall not. I normally give way regularly, but I am under an injunction and have promised to speak briefly. There are hon. Friends who have sat throughout the debate, as my hon. Friend has not, who should have the chance to take part if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will monitor the new system carefully and continuously. I hope that he will recognise that, if there is a doubt, those


people who have been writing to us and who have been deeply grieved and troubled over the past couple of weeks deserve the benefit of the doubt.
The complexities of the system which has been replaced have led to another complex system. We should be less than honest with ourselves if we did not acknowledge that not all of us realised the full impact of the changes.
One fact is underlined: the Department over which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presides is too big. I do not say that in a spirit of criticism of my right hon. Friend or his colleagues. The time has come, as the troubles of the past fortnight graphically illustrate, for the two Departments—as they were once—to be separated. We need one Department to look after the National Health Service; we need another to look after the system of social services and security.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister began her career in the old Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, when there was a Ministry of Health as well. There is sometimes virtue, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has often demonstrated, in seeking to turn the clock back. I hope that, because of our troubles, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be demoted. He certainly does not deserve that, but I hope that there will be a rethink of the machinery and system of government.
I end as I began, by thanking my right hon. Friend for his prompt, ready and sensitive response. It is a good beginning, and I trust that he will continue in the same vein.

Ms. Diane Abbott: No fewer than two weeks after the legislation was implemented, we have seen a climb-down. It will not do to talk of unforeseen circumstances. The consequences of the changes in housing benefit were foreseen many years ago. What was unforeseen was the political fallout from the pain and suffering caused by these changes. This illustrates the maxim that the Tory party never panics, except in a crisis.
There has been much talk by Conservative Members about "rough edges", "anomalies" and "fine tuning". We must stress that structural problems remain with the whole social security review. It will not do to talk about anomalies. Until the structural problems are seriously addressed, the fears of my constituents in Hackney will not be quelled.
I stress, although this point was made earlier, that the suffering caused by the housing benefit changes was not just a matter of capital and savings. There are 38,000 people in Hackney on housing benefit—most lost under the changes. Hardly any has capital. There is not a lot of capital accumulation in Hackney. Those people lost because of changes in how much they pay for their domestic rates, water rates and heating charges.
Furthermore, the Government's changes were virtually confiscatory of occupational pensions. An extraordinary number of pensioners came to see me, having scrimped and saved throughout their lives—sometimes until their 70s—only to find that, through these housing benefit changes, they would lose their occupational pensions at one stroke. I do not understand how it fits in with the

alleged Tory philosophy of encouraging thrift and saving to introduce reforms which confiscate the occupational pensions of many thousands of pensioners.
In the light of the announcement by the Secretary of State, I feel obliged to ask the questions that Hackney and, above all, the manager of the local DHSS office will ask. If pensioners are to get back the money that they have lost since 1 April, when will the scheme start? Can they go to their DHSS office tomorrow, or will they have to wait for the forms to be printed? These people have to live on £26 a week. Their need is immediate. They will want to know just how quickly the scheme will come into operation.
Most of Hackney's local DHSS offices have terrible problems with staff shortages and delays in handling cases. They will want to know whether extra staff will be made available to handle this operation. If extra staff are not made available and people who try to get their money back just go behind the queue of those already waiting for responses to fresh and different claims, pensioners will not be helped in the foreseeable future.
It is all very well to come before the House and pull opportunistic rabbits out of hats. We want to know how the transitional arrangements will work. Will resources be made available to DHSS offices? When can people go to local offices to get their money? Above all, for how long will the transitional arrangements last? It is one thing to talk about transitional arrangements, but the positon of pensioners—it is largely pensioners who come to see me—is absolute. If the transition ends in a year, they will still be faced with problems.
A Mr. Fisher came to see me. He was originally on a pension of £41·37. Because of the housing benefit changes, he will have only £28 on which to live. If the transitional period lasts only a year, Mr. Fisher will still be reduced to having only £28 on which to live. In a year, this will be as relevant as it was when he asked me a week ago how the Minister suggests he should live on £28 a week.
There has been political sleight of hand in response to political panic. Hundreds of people face serious financial cuts. The one thing that Conservative Members have forgotten to say when talking about the "relative" poor and "targeting" is that the incomes of these people are tiny. It will not do for Conservative Members to talk about relatively well-off pensioners when these pensioners are living on incomes of £40 or £50 a week.
We have seen the Government' political conjuring; now they should tell us the facts. How will the transitional arrangements work? When will they come into operation? Is there any undertaking to review and extend them to preserve the living standards of some of the very poor people whom Labour Members represent?

Mr. Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for the first time. We understand why she is highly regarded as a constituency Member of Parliament.
Many of my constituents, not least pensioners, have contacted me about the benefit changes. In north-west Norfolk there is a growing number of elderly retired people. The vast majority of them accept the broad thrust of the social security changes because they understand the need for a simpler and more efficient system that cuts out some of the abuses, eradicates the unemployment trap,


and, above all, targets benefits more fairly. However, a fair number of them were a little surprised and bewildered and, in some cases, dismayed by the £6,000 capital limit.
Like many hon. Members, I have received representations which I have put to Ministers. I wholly welcome today's announcement. It is not fair to say, as some Opposition Members have said, that the Government have climbed down under the force of pressure, retreated and done a U-turn. The Government should be congratulated.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend says that he wholly welcomes what the Government have done, but, if the Government make a blunder and change it into a mistake—if they get something 100 per cent. wrong and now have it only 15 per cent. wrong—how can my hon. Friend be wholly satisfied? Like him, I have received many representations from people. Where will those people obtain £2·50 that they never had before?

Mr. Bellingham: I do not regard what the Government did as a blunder. It was a mistake, and they have now corrected it and, above all, rendered the system far more acceptable.
The Government should not feel any shame about what they have done. They have shown that they are prepared to listen to representations, to consider individual cases and, above all, to come forward with remedies. I was particularly impressed by the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled on 13 April when he said that he would monitor the changes and consider every detail and the impact of the reforms over a prolonged period and be prepared to listen and be flexible. What the Government have done today is therefore extremely welcome.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bellingham: No, I shall not give way, as we are trying to make progress.
What has been the response of Opposition Members so far? They have derided the Government. Their constant tirades are wholly illogical. They have made endless attacks. They have not mentioned the Government's putting £2 billion more into social security this year. They have not mentioned the fact that, in cash terms, nine out of 10 people will be better off, or no worse off. They have not mentioned the fact that £1 in £3 of Government expenditure now goes towards social security, whereas, under the Labour Government, it was £1 in £4. They give no credit to the Government for the fact that, in 1978, £1·24 billion was spent on housing benefit, whereas, in the tax year 1987–88, £5·2 billion was spent on housing benefit.
Opposition Members must say what they would do, if their position is to be credible. Would they keep the old system, with all its abuses and anomalies? Do they believe that it is right that, as under the old system, a person with £30,000 capital should receive housing benefit? Do they believe that it is right for the abuses under the single payments scheme to continue? They do not tell us what they would do, particularly in respect of the ever-increasing cost of housing benefit.
We hear a great deal about immoral, un-Christian, uncaring and even wicked measures, but what is caring or Christian about keeping a system that is creaking at the seams and growing like Topsy, as the Minister of State said? What is caring or right about keeping a system that

discriminates against low-paid people in work, discourages thousands of others from finding work and has a built-in unemployment trap? The system is discredited, yet the Opposition want to keep it going. There is no answer to those points because the Opposition's position is wholly illogical. Surely the caring, correct and sensible way forward is to try to target benefits at those who need them most.
I had a conversation about housing benefit with some constituents over the weekend. They said that it would probably make sense if one house in five were to receive housing benefit, but not if one in three were to receive it. We must set the limit somewhere. We must ask ourselves whether it is right to ask low-paid people, through their taxes, to help those with substantial savings.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bellingham: No, I shall not give way. We must make progress.
The figure decided upon by the Government, following representations, is right. As the Minister said recently, nothing is cast in stone. Those figures can change. The system is now far more effective and changes can and will be made in the future, as and when the need is shown to exist. The Government will act flexibly.
There is nothing caring about building up excessive dependence on the state and creating a culture which encourages people to turn to the state in the first resort as a matter of course. The Opposition do not have answers. Opposition Members churn out individual cases by the dozen, but we have heard nothing about those pensioners with £3,000 of savings who will receive more housing benefit or about other cases where people will be considerably better off.
The Minister will be interested to know that I had a telephone call over the weekend from a Labour councillor. I shall read out the message because it was not edited by me. It states that the councillor
would be most grateful if you could call him. He sounded very nice by the way. He stressed that politically you are not in agreement. Just wanted you to know that he has heard from the grass roots how well the new benefit system is working. He knows of one family who were getting 50p or 60p under FIS, who were really poor, who are now getting £20 a week. He knows of another person who is now getting £60 a week and not £20 as before.
We hear only of those cases where people are much worse off. The Government have said that they will consider them with compassion and flexibility. The old system was seriously discredited. No Government could have stood back and done nothing, particularly a reforming Government elected on a mandate to encourage enterprise initiative and self-help.
However, there is a need for a comprehensive safety net below which nobody can fall. We must bear in mind that any social security system or comprehensive safety net is based, above all else, on the productive wealth of a country. If there is no productive base and wealth creation is stifled by a system that is growing out of all proportion, the wealth-creating system will be jeopardised and the poorest people will suffer most. That is precisely what was happening. The increases were uncontrollable. The system is now far more effective. By the time we have sorted out the details, it will be fairer and, after what the Government


have done today, much more acceptable. I shall certainly support the Government's amendment tonight, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: This afternoon, we have been treated to a wonderful spectacle on Conservative Benches.. One minute, in their prepared speeches from Central Office, Conservative Members told us that the last Labour Government threw cash around like it was going out of fashion and that they did not direct money in any way. The next minute, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) told us that the last Labour Government were too mean. Yet, in 1979 and since, the Conservative Government have based their policies against the Labour party and the electorate—those who are on benefit—on saying that those on benefit should not get more than those doing the lowest paid job in society. Everybody remembers—

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Ms. Primarolo: I shall not give way. I have 10 minutes in which to speak. Many hon. Members have contributed to the debate, and I wish to press on.
We well remember the long posters stating: "Labour isn't working". The Conservative party forced up benefits to make sure that people voted at any price. I wonder whether the Government misled the electorate then, or do they seek to mislead the electorate today?
Let us be clear about housing benefit. It does not stand in isolation. I was a member of the Standing Committees that examined the social security and housing legislation and considered the relationship between various benefits. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the Minister for Housing and Planning pointed out six times—he even chastised us—that there would be no reduction in housing benefit and that it would be the main tool for protecting tenants when the Housing Bill becomes law. Because of the changes that have been made, tenants now have no protection.
Having taken away £670 million, the Government give back £100 million today, and expect us to say, "Don't worry, everything is hunky-dory." Having once claimed to simplify it, they make announcements that will make the system more complex, and then expect us to congratulate them. They made the changes because of Opposition Members' work on exposing their policies, and then they expect us to congratulate them. We shall not do that. It is not enough. The Government must do more. On Second Reading and in Committee, Conservative Members said that housing benefit would be the major form of protection for tenants in the private sector. It will not.
I draw the attention of the House to a couple of cases, the principles of which are not dealt with by the amendments. The first involves a single parent who has one child. Following the ethics that the Government preach to her, she works part-time. As a result of the changes, she is £5·27 a week worse off. The reason is that, in the the family credit that she now receives, there is an adjustment of £2·50 to pay for the free school dinners that she has lost. Free school dinners cost £4 a week, and her compensation was only £2·50. We shall overlook that point for a moment. That £2·50 was counted as unearned

income, and she lost £5·27 housing benefit. That is not dealt with by the amendments, and that person is still losing.
The second case involves a private tenant, a disabled woman who is separated from her husband. She works part-time and receives £38 per week. She also receives £12 from her ex-husband. Until the changes, she was paying £9·10 a fortnight for her rent and rates. She must now pay an additional sum of £18 a fortnight, as a direct result of the changes in housing benefit. One day she was entitled to benefit, and the next day she was £18 a week worse off. She is not helped by the changes. Indeed, when the Housing Bill comes into force, as a private tenant, her position will deteriorate. She has not had a holiday for five years. She asked me to tell the Health Ministers that she does not smoke or drink, but she doubts whether, as a result of the changes, she will be able to exist in future.
The Minister should explain exactly what we should say to people about how they are to manage on the miserly sums that the Government are allowing them to live on. How can we explain to them that, after the Budget, some people are thousands of pounds a month better off, yet the Government are taking from them some basic amounts?
Another woman wrote to me. She is an owner-occupier. She is an old-age pensioner, 66 years old—the model of Tory ideology in terms of saving money all her life. She receives a pension of £27·72 and a payment from her ex-husband, which give her an income of £42·21 a week. Because of rates, she loses under the 20 per cent. reduction. She described her lifestyle. She has worked all her life. Her generation's contribution has been mentioned. She has one coal fire in her house. She saves all the year round to buy coal. She lights that one fire one afternoon a week—on Sunday, when she has visitors. She has meat once a week. Every other day, she eats a baked potato, an apple and some cheese.
It is disgusting that Conservative Members should subject people to that type of lifestyle and then preach on about what the Labour Government did in 1979. We are talking about now. That lady wraps herself in blankets with hot water bottles and goes to bed at 8 o'clock every night throughout the winter, and stays up only in the summer when it is warm enough to do so. Her only luxury is a cat.
Those people are not helped by the amendments. It is clear that the changes in the social security system will lead to massive hardship. To Conservative Members and to many Opposition Members it may seem only a small amount of money compared with the salaries that we receive, but to people who are trying to live on £20, £30 and £40 a week, it means the difference between being able to eat and being able to keep warm.
I have some questions for the Minister. The six months grace for selling a home will apply to housing benefit, but will it apply to income support? Obviously, in the cases that the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted, it has been a real problem. The transitional protections under the income support regulations will be cut every time a person's circumstances change. Will that happen to housing benefit too? How many people do the Government expect still to get protection in 12 months? About 5·5 million people suffered loss as a result of the changes in the regulations.
Today, with the changes that the Government have announced, 400,000 people will not be quite so badly off. What about the other 5 million? When will the


Government do something instead of giving us platitudes and figures about what they are spending and realise that, for many complex reasons, the reality—what is going on in people's lives—is not reflected in the Government's figures. It is about time that the Government did something about it.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This is, unquestionably, a watershed debate. [Interruption.] It is beginning to dawn on Conservative Members—clearly not those giggling below the Gangway—what their Government have been up to.
Over the past three years—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can testify to this as you have frequently been in the Chair on these occasions—we have described over and over again exactly the same problems about which we have heard today. Conservative Members, with a few honourable exceptions, have behaved like the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) did a few moments ago; they have jeered, sneered or completely ignored our predictions. To be fair, I can understand that they could not believe what was about to happen, even though it was predicted not only by us but by every other independent group or commentator. It is true that we were not 100 per cent. accurate, and perhaps we should apologise for that, although we were more accurate than the Government. We erred on the side of generosity.
Until two weeks ago, the Government dismissed all our figures as hypothetical, misleading and exaggerated. What we have heard over the past few days makes it clear that the losses in housing benefit, as the Government initially intended it to be imposed, were worse than those hypothetical figures.
As Conservative Members are perhaps beginning to listen to the case being put by the Labour party, I shall make two points. First, we should look, in the context of this debate, at the basis of the Government's argument —which was parroted by Conservative Members—about why they should make savings in housing benefit—savings from which today we have forced them so spectacularly and abruptly to begin to retreat.
Again today, the argument was advanced that housing benefit must need cutting because it goes to one household in three and because the budget has risen since 1979. I recommend that Conservative Members who parroted those arguments read not only the briefings that they get from the Whips Office or Central Office but the 1985 or 1988 report of the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee. In both those reports, they will find admirably set out the reason for increased expenditure on housing benefit—the increase in housing costs. Those costs are higher now than in 1979 or 1982, when the Government introduced the housing benefit scheme, which the Secretary of State comprehensively denounced this afternoon as unfair, complicated and dreadful.
As some Conservative Members were not paying as much attention as they should have been when the Secretary of State referred scathingly to the Opposition having done nothing about the scheme, I shall repeat that it was this Government's scheme, which they introduced in 1982, that the Secretary of State was criticising. Although he criticised the Opposition for not dealing with the worst

aspects of the poverty trap in the preceding scheme, his criticisms of the poverty trap that preceded this scheme were criticisms of his Government, not ours.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I am short of time. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman only if I have enough time.
This is not the Government's first attempt to evade the consequences of the net effect of housing benefit changes. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) saved me time by listing a substantial number of the cuts that the Government have made and mentioning the millions of people whom they have excluded or who have lost help with housing benefit in recent years.
Cumulative savings of £366 million were made between 1983 and 1987, before the £650 million-worth of savings that the Government had planned to make this year. During that same period, despite the cuts in spending on housing benefits, which rose to £5,000 million, the subsidy in housing costs, which helps to keep rents down, has been cut by a cumulative total of £5,000 million, in real terms at 1987–88 prices. That cut led to the 155 per cent. increase in average local authority rents, which has so contributed to the numbers of people who need and draw housing benefit. That is only the cut in average local authority rents: there have also been cuts in rate support grant, which have led to increases in rates, and again the need for housing benefit to be increased.
Conservative Members do not realise that help with housing benefit is a smaller proportion of the rent and rates bill for every individual who receives that help than it was in 1979, 1982 or 1983. That help is not only a smaller proportion of housing costs but is lost at lower incomes—far below average earnings for those with average rent and rates. Before April 1983, a single pensioner would have lost entitlement to housing benefit at a weekly income of £94·35p. From April this year, such a person loses entitlement to housing benefit at a weekly income of £64·51. That is a cash cut of £30, never mind what it is in real terms. The argument that the housing benefit scheme is over-generous falls apart if one troubles to scrutinise the facts.
We have been calling for the concessions that have been announced today in the capital limit and on the transitional arrangements. It is a pity—it would have saved many people much anguish and heartache—that the Government were unable to announce any concessions in transitional arrangements over the past three years, as they did in 1982. It is a pity that they had to make it so crystal clear that they were determined to make these cuts if they could possibly get away with it.
It is a pity that, because only concessions in transitional protection have been offered, the losses that have been described still occur—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, they will be more gradual. It is a pity that the savage tapers and rule changes, which have caused losses to over 5 million people, will remain wholly untouched and will bite unamended on new claimants or those who give up benefit for a period but return at the new levels.
It is a pity that the marginal rate of tax—85p in the pound for those who claim housing benefit—begins to apply at incomes just over £3,500 a year for a couple. Government Back Benchers have described the benefits


scheme as over-generous, yet a month ago in the Budget the Chancellor said that the highest rate of marginal tax applied to the most wealthy should be 40p in the pound.
It is a pity that, despite the transitional protection that has been announced today, people will still face rent rises of up to £7 or £8 a week. Conservative Members have not noticed that, although the Secretary of State is saying that losses above £2·50 will be made good, he is also saying that that will be based on last year's rent and rates, not this year's. An initial calculation that I have received from Edinburgh shows that people will lose between £5·50 and £8 a week before any help will be given. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) at least has appreciated that point.
It is a pity that two people in identical circumstances will receive rebates that differ by £10 a week or more, depending on whether they claim before or after 1 April, because new claimants do not get transitional protection.
It is certainly a pity that not only is there an incredibly complex system for claiming that concession—which will certainly cause headaches for local authorities and will have to be operated by claimants—but it appears that the childless, the young, and childless widows who are not pensioners will be excluded even from the help that is being offered.
That is the major case that I want to make about the concessions, the nature of the Government's scheme and what they are offering. My second point concerns the restricted nature of this debate. Now that Government Back Benchers have been forced to accept that the Labour party understands and accurately describes the effects of the changes that the Government are making, perhaps they will listen not only to us but to others who dispute the Government's claim about housing benefit and the rest of the changes that the Government are making.
I shall quote from a letter dated 26 April sent by the Royal National Institute for the Blind to the Secretary of State. It states:
Over the past two years we have repeatedly put to you and your officials cases illustrating the levels of loss which disabled people would face … We have refuted the Government's claim that only 80,000 'Sick and disabled people' will be worse off.
That refers not to the housing benefit changes, but to some small part of the other changes that the Government will pass.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way later, if I can.
Today's debate barely deals with the tip of the iceberg of the Government's changes. It is not even the case that all the losses on housing benefit are yet apparent. My local authority is having problems with the computer software, although I understand from it and the company involved that mine is substantially ahead of many other local authorities. Many local authorities have not been able to inform their electorate of the scale of losses that the electorate is likely to face.
Apart from not knowing all the losses even on housing benefit, there are the losses on other rule changes; the losses when people lose transitional protection on income support; the impact when those who have transitional protection get increased bills but no increased income to meet them; and the impact when the desperate are not only

turned away after applying for help with essential items from the social fund, but told that they cannot even re-apply for six months. More than all that, there is the devastating impact of the gap that new claimants will find between their needs and their income.
On Monday my local social security office gave me the example of someone diagnosed as near to the date of their death. Sadly, that does occur. Under the old system, the office could have visited and given every kind of additional allowance and help it could lay its hands on. Now, such a patient cannot be offered anything except, if they are lucky, a crisis loan. If such a person lives long enough to qualify for an attendance allowance, that is six months, he may be able to get some help. If all the generous help from the Government to protect the severely disabled is heavily linked to benefits such as the attendance allowance, for which one must be seriously ill for six months to qualify, those families will suffer not only bereavement but a death debt with it. All that is still to come.
Clearly, a few Conservative Members understand that. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) spoke in deep and almost impenetrable code, but I think he told his Ministers that this was not the last but only the first climbdown that they would have to make. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) showed remarkable perspicacity when he said to his Front Bench colleagues:
I do not believe that the Bill will stand the test of time." —[Official Report, 20 May 1986; Vol. 98, c. 269.]
I doubt whether even the hon. Gentleman thought that the measure would not last three weeks.
We know that some Conservative Members are considering how they will vote tonight. When they make that judgment, they should remember that that is just the start of the relevation of the damage which their Government are doing. I can understand that people find it difficult to believe in the nature and scale of the losses that we have consistently identified. A reason must be that they could not understand why even this Government should take such a political risk.
Incidentally, on 12 April the Chief Secretary said that Ministers had no plans to bow to the rising tide of criticism by tinkering with the regulations, but we shall pass over that. He also said:
At the heart of the reform is the ending of the discrimination between low income people in work and those not in work on benefit.
The Chief Secretary put his finger on the essential point: this is part of the Government's attack on trade union rights, part of the promotion of a low wage economy—benefits must be even lower than wages—and part of their attack on the principle of the welfare state.
The Chief Secretary's words echoed those of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1832:
the situation of the individual relieved should not be made really or apparently so eligible as the situation of the independent labourer of the lowest class.
The Government are at one with the Poor Law Commission.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I have only about one minute.
This is part two of the attack on the principles of the welfare state: the principle of universality and the principle


of an emphasis on rights, not charity. Lest any hon. Members on Conservative Benches or on ours doubt the direction in which the Government are going, I refer them to an article by Professor Minford in The Daily Telegraph on 25 April:
It is the existence of income support at all for pensioners that is the disincentive to save.
The view of those who advise this Government is that the changes do not go far enough; it is just a step along the road towards demolishing the welfare state.
Clearly, it has come as an unpleasant shock to the Government that even Tory voters have been undermined by 50 years of promotion of Socialist ideas, as the Secretary of State for the Environment said the other day, to believe that they should have rights and dignities, and should not be ashamed of claiming benefits for which they have contributed. The fact that they believe that has forced the Government to back down today on this minor aspect of the changes. Tory Back Benchers threatened to vote with the Labour party. The only way in which the Government will back down from the overwhelming damage that they intend to pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed is if those who have the opportunity, particularly at the local elections on 5 May, show, by voting resoundingly for the Labour party, that they reject the Government's philosophy and principles which cost the elderly and disabled so dear.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I understand the need of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), in her peroration, to accuse the Government of every possible attack on the elderly, the sick and the poor that she can find in her catechism, but her criticisms sit ill with the Government's record on social security since we came to office in 1979. I cannot see how her criticisms, or the surprising attack on the Government from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), characterising the changes as an attack by the rich on the living standards of the poor, sit with the steady and consistent increase in both the scope and extent of social security under this Government.
Today we are spending 40 per cent. more in real terms on benefit than the Labour Government. [Interruption.] We are spending nearly £ 1 billion a week on social security benefits. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady was heard in silence. It is only fair that the Minister should have a hearing.

Mr. Scott: Every working taxpayer is contributing £40 a week towards social security. We are helping more than 6 million people with rent, rates, or both. The criticism that the Government's record on the disabled does not stand up to scrutiny is particularly offensive. Spending on the disabled has risen by no less than 80 per cent. in real terms under this Government—over £3 billion in real terms. Those criticisms do not stand up. I rebut them only because the hon. Lady made them. This debate covers narrower ground, because we are discussing an Opposition motion on housing benefit and the Government's amendment to it.
I am glad to reply to this debate on the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put to the House this afternoon. His response showed clearly the Government's determination to fulfil the pledge that we

gave previously, that, as we implement these reforms, we shall listen carefully and be responsive to criticisms—[Interruption.] I cannot conceive how Opposition Members can characterise this as a climbdown or a U-turn. We are spending £5·2 billion on housing benefit and we are today making a modest adjustment of £100 million to respond to criticisms by my hon. Friends and some Labour Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) put it exactly right. It is the duty of the Government to listen, to be responsive to and to use good judgment about criticisms. The Government have done that without any of the arrogance that we too often saw from Labour Members when they were on these Benches.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked for a specific continuing commitment that we shall continue to monitor the impact of these changes as the years go by. I suggest that the fact that we have had this debate, and the announcement by my right hon. Friend earlier, will arouse considerable interest among the public. We will be making an early announcement about the steps that people should take to avail themselves of the transitional protection that we have announced today. We hope to make an announcement within the next few days on cases of exceptional hardship. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will draw these matters to the attention of anyone who may be able to benefit from the transitional protection.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) accused us of abandoning the simplicity of the existing system. That is not true. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the structure is substantially the same as it was. We are being responsive to a pair of problems which have presented themselves where we believe early action is necessary.
I also reinforce the point, which I think the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye made, that the transitional protection is nothing to do with our local offices. It will be administered centrally by a special unit, although we will need the support and co-operation of local authorities in filtering the applications as they come through.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked two or three questions, apart from his general attack on the Government, and I should like to respond to those. He asked whether all those on housing benefit supplement will be covered by the transitional protection. The answer to his question is that they will be covered if they fall within the categories outlined by my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks. Pensioners, sick and disabled people, and families with children will be covered if they suffer as a result of the ending of housing benefit supplement.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead also asked—this point has been raised by other hon. Members—why we chose the figure of £2·50. First, it is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking not about people on income support, but people who are above income support level. Further, we had to balance the cost of administering any new scheme of transitional protection against the benefits which would ensue. Again, it was a matter of judgment which led us to choose £2·50 as a reasonable way of protecting those with high losses over a transitional period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), the hon. Member for Birkenhead and other hon. Members asked what will happen to transitional payments in the course of time: will they be treated in the same way as other transitional arrangements or finish after a single year? They will be treated in the same way as transitional arrangements in other circumstances. Increases in benefits will erode the provision necessary under transitional protection. After one year, fewer people will need that transitional protection; after two years even fewer people will need it; and eventually the need for it will disappear. I recognise that appropriate help may have to be given over an extended period to some of those people for whom we have announced that protection will be available.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) raised a number of points. First, he mentioned the deprivation in Northern Ireland, with which both he and I are familiar. We know who is largely responsible for deprivation in that part of the United Kingdom. The administration of the transitional protection in Northern Ireland has still to be decided—for example, whether it will be done by the central unit of the DHSS on this side of the water or the DHSS in Northern Ireland. It may be that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland will be the more appropriate body for handling that matter. As we are handling it centrally for Great Britain, it may be sensible to cover Northern Ireland on the same basis. We shall make a final decision on that later.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also asked about small amounts of land which may be held in Northern Ireland. The situation there is that if the land is worked, the income generated from it will be taken into account. If it is not worked, the capital value will be taken into account. If it is virtually worthless, it will be totally ignored and treated as such. He also said that houses in Northern Ireland are difficult to sell because of the particular circumstances in the Province. In that event, the six-month rule is capable of being extended.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.
What I have shown today is that the changes that my right hon. Friend announced were intended to ease two important situations, where the shoe was pinching as a result of the introduction of the benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) starkly contrasted the records of the Conservative and Labour Governments in these matters. Let us look at housing benefit and contrast the Labour record with that of the Conservative Government.[Interruption.]

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Scott: I know that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was not a member of that Labour Government, but it is about time that he listened to some of the facts. The total expenditure on housing support, which is rent and allowances, in 1974–75 was £701 million—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not shout each other down in this House.

Mr. Scott: I know that Opposition Members do not like the facts, but they should try to listen to them.

Hon. Members: Tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Scott: In real terms, the Labour Government's £1·23 billion in 1978–79 represented not an increase, but a reduction of 2 per cent. in expenditure on housing support. The Conservative Government's record shows an increase of 107 per cent. in real terms over the period of—[Interruption.] Indeed, the Member for Derby, South suggested in her reply to the debate— she quoted the Social Security Advisory Committee in support of this—that it is not the RPI that should be taken into account, but the increase in housing costs. However, if we take rent levels as a measure, the Labour Government managed an increase of only 2 to 3 per cent. in real terms during their period of office.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order and not a point of argument.

Mr. Allen: Speaker, I understand that this is an Opposition Supply day. Therefore, is not the Minister under some obligation to respond to the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I have been here since the Minister rose, and he has been doing just that.

Mr. Scott: The 2 to 3 per cent. increase in real terms during the term of the Labour Government contrasts with the increase of over 50 per cent. in real terms under this Government. The fact is that the Labour party failed when it was in office, and it is failing again. We have provided the resources for housing support—[Interruption.]

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Scott: The fact is—and the hon. Member for Livingston knows it—that the Labour Government failed to generate the wealth to provide for their social security spending. Does he remember the Labour Government's approach to social security spending? I shall remind him of what Joel Barnett said about the Labour Government. He stated:
It might be said that the first few months … were characterised by our spending money which in the event we did not have.
Where did that lead? It led to the IMF, cuts in social security and the inability of the Labour Government to fulfil the high-flown promises that they presented to the electorate. They will fail again, given half the chance.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No.
Of course I recognise, in the words of the late Iain Macleod, that money is the root of all progress. However, one has to generate that wealth in the first place. Only then can one spend it. This Government have done just that.

Mr. Speaker: The original Question was the motion on the effects of the new housing benefit changes in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Tony Banks: It is not 7 o'clock yet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 324.

Division No. 278]
[7.pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Allen, Graham
Douglas, Dick


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eadie, Alexander


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew


Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beggs, Roy
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Bidwell, Sydney
Galloway, George


Blair, Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blunkett, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Mildred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Doug


Cartwright, John
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Holland, Stuart


Clay, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Hume, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor


Cunningham, Dr John
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lambie, David





Lamond, James
Prescott, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Primarolo, Dawn


Leighton, Ron
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Randall, Stuart


Lewis, Terry
Redmond, Martin


Litherland, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Livsey, Richard
Richardson, Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robertson, George


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCusker, Harold
Rowlands, Ted


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGrady, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McLeish, Henry
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Bob
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Madden, Max
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mallon, Seamus
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Meale, Alan
Strang, Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N.


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wray, Jimmy


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Frank Cook.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, W.


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Allason, Rupert
Blackburn, Dr John G


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Body, Sir Richard


Amos, Alan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Atkins, Robert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkinson, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bellingham, Henry
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon






Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothterry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knox, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lightbown, David


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Peter


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gill, Christopher
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McCrindle, Robert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maclean, David


Gow, Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Madel, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Major, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
Matins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mans, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maples, John


Grist, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mellor, David





Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Hal
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Speed, Keith


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Needham, Richard
Stokes, John


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Page, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Renton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Riddick, Graham
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walters, Dennis


Rost, Peter
Ward, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wheeler, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Woodcock, Mike


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Skeet, Sir Trevor

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 220.

Division No. 279]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert
Aspinwall, Jack


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David


Amos, Alan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)






Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hanley, Jeremy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holt, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knox, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lightbown, David





Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lord, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Keith


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Mellor, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miller, Hal
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mills, Iain
Stokes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thorne, Neil


Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trippier, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Page, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Paice, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Walden, George


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Raffan, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, John
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Tim
Wilshire, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Woodcock, Mike


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Rowe, Andrew



Rumbold, Mrs Angela





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)






Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Margaret
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Foster, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blair, Tony
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Blunkett, David
George. Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buckley, George J.
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hinchliffe, David


Cartwright, John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Holland, Stuart


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clay, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hume, John


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
John, Brynmor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lambie, David


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Doran, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Douglas, Dick
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Eadie, Alexander
Livsey, Richard


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Loyden, Eddie


Faulds, Andrew
McAllion, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAvoy, Thomas





McCusker, Harold
Richardson, Jo


McFall, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McGrady, Eddie
Robertson, George


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McTaggart, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mallon, Seamus
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Spearing, Nigel


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Wall, Pat


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert N.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Prescott, John
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Randall, Stuart



Redmond, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Reid, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising that social security spending has risen by nearly 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and now totals almost £48½ billion, and that spending on housing benefit last year amounted to over £5 billion and went to over 7 million, or 1 in 3, households in this country, commends Her Majesty's Government for its determination to tackle the complexities and unfairnesses of the old system.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [15 March].

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to continue the debate that was unfortunately curtailed on 15 March. On that occasion I made some side remarks about the former Great Northern railway that went up to Bradford.
On this occasion I should like to concentrate upon the fact that a number of the new works listed in the Bill are interesting because, on several occasions, the track beds are former railways, which are now to be restored to use. That is welcome, but it would have been more helpful if the British Railways Board had been more cautious about closing those tracks in the first place. It would also have been helpful if the Government had not financially pressed the British Railways Board so that it had to look for other means of obtaining revenue, even if that meant closing the railways that it was supposed to run. The Bill illustrates that failing, because several of the private works will utilise existing track beds. Indeed, some of the compulsory purchase items relate to track that must be bought back from the owners to whom the British Railways Board sold the track beds.
The preservation of railway rights of way by the British Railways Board and other public bodies, such as local authorities, is important because many of us, especially Opposition Members, have argued that use of the railways will increase—we have made that argument for the past 20 years. There has been an increase in passenger usage. In the past 25 years we have argued against many of the closures; we said that the majority were mistaken and foolish and were helping to erode the national network. In a minor way, the Bill reflects the truth of those statements.
I wish to consider clause 18, which deals with a level crossing in the parish of Steeton with Eastburn. The Bill gives the British Railways Board powers to close that crossing once a road bridge has been constructed
by the Secretary of State in connection with the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section of the improvement of the Airedale Trunk Road.
The closure of the level crossing at Steeton will save the board between £30,000 and £40,000 a year in terms of operational costs, repairs and maintenance. What will be done with that money? The board will not have to spend that money to provide any alternative level crossing facility because a road bridge will be constructed by the Department of Transport. Presumably no cost will be borne by the hoard, so the board will have a net saving of quite a considerable sum.
I hope that the money will be used on the railway because Steeton—it formerly had a station—is on the line that runs from Leeds to Carlisle. I suggest to the promoters of the Bill that when the board can obtain savings, it should use every possible opportunity to put that money towards helping to maintain the Settle-Carlisle railway. The level crossing is on the route of that railway, which was constructed to give the Midland railway, running north from Leeds, access to Scotland. It is germane to the argument that the money saved on the level crossing should be invested in the Settle-Carlisle railway.
The £30,000 to £40,000 which will be saved on Steeton crossing would be over and above the £500,000 which the local authorities have offered to help restore Ribblehead viaduct. As the House will no doubt remember, the Minister for Public Transport is mulling over the local authorities' proposal. In reply to a written question today, the Minister said:
The local authorities have offered £500,000 towards the capital costs of restoring Ribblehead Viaduct subject to the following conditions:
a. that British Rail continue to maintain and operate the line;
b. that the line's future be guaranteed for a period of at least 20 years;
c. that the contributions are a 'one-off' which should not be seen as setting any precedent and no further requests for financial support should be made.
If, through the legislation, British Rail can make a saving, naturally the qualification about the one-off contribution from the local authorities would be more practicable. The answer continued:
d. that the revenue support contributions already agreed for the next two years will not be extended beyond that period.
The Minister may make a statement shortly about the retention of the Settle-Carlisle line. That magnificent and beautiful railway runs from Settle junction and is connected to the main network on the very line with which the Bill deals. I hope that the Minister will announce shortly, if not tonight, that the Settle-Carlisle line is to be preserved and used for visitors and people who live in the Yorkshire dales. Thousands of people are waiting with bated breath for that announcement.
The local authorities have been blackmailed into accepting the position, because the Minister wanted to put the odium of closure on the local authorities rather than take it on his own shoulders. The local authorities have come up with a significant amount of money. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to say that the line has been saved.

Mr. Gary Waller: I support the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the Settle-Carlisle line. As the line cannot be justified in purely transport terms, as I think many would agree, although it is justified on the wider view, is it not right that the local authorities should make a contribution, bearing in mind that some of the benefits which would flow from the retention of the line are benefits which local authorities exist to promote?

Mr. Cryer: I do not want to digress too much from the Bill, but this legislation is a possible source of revenue to help the Settle-Carlisle line. If the hon. Gentleman compares the cost of the Aire valley trunk road with the modest cost of maintaining this line, he will see that the road user is getting enormous investment compared with the railway user. I do not agree with him that the railway is not justified on transport and economic grounds. After all, it is a section of British Rail in which income equals expenditure. As the hon. Gentleman will know, when British Rail announced the closure of the Settle-Carlisle line, it was embarrassed by a breakdown on the west coast route which forced it to divert all traffic to the Settle-Carlisle line. It is an important diversionary route. The efforts of British Rail to divert freight traffic from the route, in a feeble and misjudged attempt to prove that it was not a part of the national network, came to naught.
The line has potential and this legislation would provide additional revenue which British Rail, with the


approval of the Minister, could divert to it. The section of railway which we are talking about is supported to some extent by the local passenger transport authority.
When Steeton level crossing is closed, there will be much redundant equipment. Some of it will be in good working order and it could be transferred to a line like the Settle-Carlisle line, which is not the crack inter-city route it used to be when it was part of the midland main line to Scotland. I hope that British Rail will consider using that equipment to keep the Settle-Carlisle line going rather than break it up and throw it to one side. The House often forgets that there are many ways of keeping railways running. One is using redundant materials from elsewhere. If the BRB had the will, it could do that to help this magnificent railway.
Clause 19(3), which refers to a new level crossing, says:
The Board may, subject to such requirements as the Secretary of State may from time to time lay down, provide, maintain and operate at or near the new level crossing such harriers, lights, traffic signs and automatic or other devices and appliances as may be approved by the Secretary of State.
No doubt the Minister supports the legislation, as we all do, because it means an improved railway network. Nonetheless, the safest level crossings are those with interlinking electronic or mechanical devices between the closing of a barrier or a gate and signals for the passage of trains.
I draw this to the Minister's attention because the Department of Transport over the past quarter century has allowed the standard of operation at the level crossings to deteriorate. It has removed employees in the interests of "economy" and "efficiency", which means that there have been accidents. I have operated an interlinking system, which is insisted on by the Department of Transport on the Worth valley railway. It is perfectly proper. There are two level crossings on the line, which operate with interlocking signals. I urge the Minister to keep this under careful review to ensure high standards of safety.

Mr. Greg Knight: When accidents happen, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not due to the lack of employees but to the lack of gates? There seems to be a policy of removing level crossing gates and merely having crossings operated by flashing traffic signals, with the result that on occasions motorists attempt to jump the lights. That is when accidents happen.

Mr. Cryer: I was being, as usual, a modest, cautious observer of the passing scene. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the removal of gates has caused difficulties. Foolish motorists can manoeuvre around the single pole barriers. Sometimes there are no barriers or just a pole, or a pole with a falling fence attached to it. It is a retrogate step. Over many years we have established a high standard of railway safety, which is zealously supported by railway employees.
Financial constraints imposed by the Government have led to pressure on BRB to get rid of employees, which results in a lowering of safety standards. Many stations are no longer manned. With signal boxes covering ever longer route mileages, the signalman cannot keep as good an eye on security. Vandalism on British railways nationally costs about £20 million a year. It is foolish to have to repair faults arising from vandalism when, by employing more people, British Rail could obviate it. Indeed, it is worth

pointing out to the Minister that the BRB threatened to sack some members of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen who, two days before the fire at King's Cross, were distributing leaflets pointing out that there were dangers in the operation of King's Cross and other underground stations.
The increasingly rigid attitude of British Rail management in that respect is counter-productive, and disheartening for members of ASLEF and the NUR, who do a good job and give excellent service. Those works cannot be carried out effectively if the management is not prepared to co-operate with the trade unions. It has been put to me by members who have spent 30, 40 or 50 years working on the railways that they have never known such an autocratic and rigid attitude.
That attitude is induced and engendered by the Government. The best way of working is always by co-operation rather than confrontation. The rail trade unions have never sought otherwise, and management should not try to insist on confrontation, as they have so often done—most recently at King's Cross. I am told that there are difficulties also at Leeds, which is one of the biggest depots in the country.

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman's link between safety and manpower is not born out by the facts. At the time when the predecessors of British Rail employed three or four times the number of people it does today, railway accidents took the lives of several hundred people every year.

Mr. Peter Snape: When was that?

Mr. Waller: Rail is now one of the safest forms of transport, yet the relationship with the number of people using the railways is more aligned to the number of staff reductions. The link between manpower and safety cannot be drawn in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has got his statistics wholly wrong. I cannot recall one year in the operation of the railways when hundreds of people were killed. Today, the number of mortalities can be counted on the fingers of two hands, at most. Those killed are usually not passengers but railwaymen working on the line without adequate safety precautions.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said that, without barriers, new dangers are created at railway crossings, and there have been a number of horrific accidents. The installation of automatic crossings, with or without barriers, is due to the removal of level crossing keepers in order to cut operating costs. At the same time, reasonable levels of safety must be maintained. British Rail operates trains carrying staff who try to catch those who trespass or throw things on to the railway line.
That is done, at considerable cost, because over many miles of track there are not enough railwaymen working —either as a matter of routine or because signal boxes have closed. Maintenance is now undertaken by machinery or by roving gangs instead. Many stations are left unmanned or have closed. For all those reasons, the railway tends to be more vulnerable.
My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) worked on the railways


all his life before coming to the House and he is nodding his head in agreement. The new works set out in the British Railways (No. 2) Bill—

Sir John Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I will, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this sentence.
Those proposed works will be improved if the management is prepared to take a positive attitude towards the trade unions. I have found over many years that railwaymen in particular are devoted to the system they serve and want to do a good job.

Sir John Farr: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but is it not true that the work traditionally undertaken by gang men can now be undertaken by machines? Provided that innovation is adopted with safety, no human life will then be at risk. Ten years ago, say, such maintenance was the cause of unfortunate accidents.

Mr. Cryer: As I remember it, the Hither Green disaster was caused by a cracked rail that was subject to mechanical inspection. Although we may denigrate ourselves as human beings from time to time, if we give some devotion to our work, we are all better off for it. The Hither Green disaster was an example of a lack of human inspection leading to a serious track failure. I believe that there can be both types of inspection.
I do not object to the improvements set out in the Bill. The jobs need to be made easier, and perhaps that will result in the work being performed better. At the same time, we should not get rid of people purely from an accounting point of view. If we do so, we may live to regret it. Some would argue that the King's Cross disaster could he blamed on a diminution in the number of staff there and a lack of concern for safety as a result of management seeking to reduce the number of staff.

Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend go further and say that, in the recently published report on the 1986 disaster at Colwich junction, when, tragically, one railwayman was killed—albeit no passengers were injured—the Department of Transport's own inspector pointed to the lack of footplate inspection staff as a reason why the driver of one of the trains involved made the mistake he did? That inspection starkly illustrated the dangers of withdrawing staff for the sake of saving money and the likely consequences of such an economy in terms of safety.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he has considerable knowledge of railway matters and follows these issues closely. He will recall, as I do, that, in the early 1980s, railway inspectorate reports pointed to a reduction in safety levels as a result of the pressure on maintenance expenditure. In criticising any lowering of level crossing standards, I place the onus not on the railway inspectorate, which aims at the highest possible standards, but on those who pursue a policy of putting profit and loss before service.
The qualification introduced by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) about the electrification of the London midland line has my support, but the question of profit and loss rears its head again. The railway that really needs electrification is the midland line, which has more gradients and curves, and which needs the added traction that electrification would bring—more so than the GN

line, which is relatively straight, and on which a considerable amount of money has been spent ironing out the curves at Peterborough, Grantham and other places. However, because of the greater passenger utilisation of the former Great Northern railway, it is that which most easily satisfies the criteria set by the Government. In terms of operational improvement, the greatest benefit would be to the midland line out of King's Cross.

Mr. Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend means St. Pancras.

Mr. Cryer: Of course I meant the midland line out of St. Pancras, and I hope that Hansard will correct my momentary error. How could anyone forget the greatness and majesty of St. Pancras in showing that the midland railway had arrived and that the head of all England was not in London, but was at the Derby locomotive works and management centre?
In the context of the profit and loss into which we shall enter in respect of the private works and improvements proposed, it is worth pointing out that the electrification of the Great Northern railway is being penny-pinched for the sake of seven or eight miles, from Leeds to Bradford. I remind the Minister that Bradford was the first city to have Pullman trains, initiated by the midland railway. It is a major city, and it causes considerable resentment that the operating efficiency of British Rail—if that is what concerns the Minister—is to be sullied by the fact that when the electric trains reach Leeds, under the recent electrification, a diesel locomotive will be hooked on the end and the whole lot will be dragged to Bradford interchange.
Electrification should create jobs and produce operating efficiencies. I cannot imagine that British Rail will for long justify a stud of locomotives at Leeds just to haul some trains over the remaining spur between Leeds and Bradford. In a very short time, we shall hear talk of economies and cuts, as we have so often before. I urge the Minister yet again to consider the additional electrification on the GN line, at the same time as taking into account the entreaties and representations of his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.
No doubt some of my hon. Friends will make out a good case for electrification of the midland main line out of St. Pancras. If the Minister wants some testimony to his career as a Transport Minister, nothing could be better than to do a good job on the GN line and get the overhead wires running all the way from King's Cross to Bradford. Let him not stint or penny-pinch. Then he will not be remembered in Bradford as the mean-minded Transport Minister. I want him to be remembered as the man who supported railways by electrifying a number of lines, and most of all by ensuring that the Settle-Carlisle railway is retained for future years. I hope that he will come to the House very soon to tell us that he will do that.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), is still the Member of the European Parliament for Sheffield and a part of Chesterfield. I also see, behind him, one of my colleagues from Sheffield, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is a former Member of the European Parliament.
Since joining the House I have discovered the inadequacies of British Rail in many shapes and forms. Let me ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I stay on the right lines—at the risk of making a pun! The Bill touches Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster, which entitles me, as a former leader of the Opposition on South Yorkshire county council, to speak on the subject. As someone once reminded me, the finest thing that ever came out of Leeds station was the train to Sheffield.
Having listened to what British Rail has to say about the improvements that it wishes to make in various areas of south Yorkshire, I have discovered that the majority of people who buy a ticket to travel by British Rail want to arrive safely, to sit in a clean carriage and to obtain a seat. They are not bothered about the type of food that is served, the livery that is worn or whether there is a telephone. They are concerned about the time at which a train leaves one city and arrives in another.
I have also discovered that Sheffield and London are cut off from each other from 9.40 pm until 7.39 am the following morning. I have also discovered that it is impossible to leave for, say, Doncaster—as you probably know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—at any reasonable time.
In a former incarnation I corresponded a fair amount with the Minister, explaining that the subsidy provided by the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority was excessive. While we had the cheapest fares of any metropolitan county, we also had the highest rates, and were paying very dearly for them. In various letters I explained to the Minister that Sheffield seemed to be off the beaten track. The Minister, quite rightly, stands at the Dispatch Box and tells hon. Members on both sides of the House that that is a matter for British Rail, but we do not seem to have an opportunity to speak to British Rail.
My parliamentary colleagues from south Yorkshire will probably be pleased to hear what happened when I said that I was not very enthusiastic. I did British Rail the courtesy of saying what I thought of the way in which it treated its passengers: after all, I am one of them. I said that I could not get out of London after 9.40 pm, and could not leave until the next morning. Suddenly, British Rail was prepared to put on a train that left for Sheffield at 11 pm, from May 1989. I do not know whether the word "blackmail" can be used in this place, but I thought it very wrong that that should happen so suddenly.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in his plea for the electrification of the St. Pancras-Sheffield link. The city of Sheffield needs to be revitalised. The world student games and the presence of the urban development corporation mean that Sheffield needs a further lift to put it back on the map of the United Kingdom. It needs a rail service of which it can be proud, and an urban link. Those things are not available.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is not the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) deficient, in that it refers only to the city of Leicester? If there is a good case for electrifying the main line as far as Leicester, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an even stronger case for going further, through Derby and on to Sheffield?

Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for his guidance. When I was a much newer Member, I committed a flagrant

sin. I caught one of those "change at Derby" trains, as I thought that I could get back to Sheffield more quickly. That, as I discovered, was another fallacy. I spent a happy hour sitting in the station hotel—which, believe it or not, adjoins the station—drinking Coca-Cola, until the train arrived. I agree that the line should go past Leicester and right up to Sheffield.
Until 5 May, I am still a member of Sheffield city council. I do not know whether a fickle finger was pointed at me, but none the less I remain there. I have been a member of the council for 21 years—and I am only 26 now! During that time we have tried to improve the service that Sheffield obtains from British Rail.
I have read the Bill, and I see that work is being done at Darton and Barnsley. Work is also being done at Rotherham, at Kilnhurst and—as the hon. Member for Bradford, South said—on a crossing at Doncaster. I accept that all that work is needed, but I think that we need other things. We need a service of which everyone can be proud. We need electrification. We also need to "push it back", as I put it, to ensure that instead of travelling from London to Sheffield by road, people are prepared to travel by British Rail. All entreaties, whether they are made to the chairman, the area manager or the regional manager, seem to produce no progress. There seems to be no forum between the House and British Rail. If anything comes out of this debate, I hope that it will be such a forum.
I support the need for electrification and the need for passengers to travel between cities of importance such as Derby, Sheffield and Leicester. If one travels the 30 miles to Doncaster to catch a train there, one can be in London in the excellent time of one hour 38 minutes. Once electrification comes to Doncaster, the time will come down to an hour and a half, and some of my south Yorkshire colleagues may be able to confirm this.
I rang Radio Sheffield to explain the changes that have been made today, but first I had to listen to the British Rail timetable announcements that the trains coming into Sheffield from London were 80 minutes late for various reasons, and that the trains to Wakefield would be late leaving for other reasons.
Sheffield has a second-class rail service, which is not good enough, because we are a first-class city. The sooner something happens between British Rail and the Government to ensure that the first-class city of Sheffield has a first-class service from British Rail, the better it will be for the people of south Yorkshire, including the electorate of Hallam.

8 pm

Mr. Richard Caborn: It is not often that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and I are on the same lines, but on this occasion we are. Unfortunately, the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) stops at Leicester, but I am sure that, as well as being supported by the hon. Member for Hallam, others who would like the line to go a little further north—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. In case there is a misunderstanding, perhaps I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr).

Mr. Caborn: That is unfortunate, because there is a need for discussion about the electrification of the midland main line in the context of the Bill.
I shall add one or two points to those made by the hon. Member for Hallam. In 1991, the world student games are to be held in Sheffield, and it is estimated that they will attract 120 countries and over 6,000 participants. To put it in perspective, that is three times larger than the Commonwealth Games and the second largest sporting event outside the summer Olympics. It will take people between two hours and 40 minutes and two hours and 50 minutes to travel the 160 miles from St. Pancras to Sheffield. That is appalling by any standards. This will be the sports window of the world and to move people to it on such a bankrupt line will denigrate the railway system of the United Kingdom. I hope that British Rail will realise how many people will be supporting that sporting event.
Even more important, in the early 1990s the Channel tunnel will be finished. It took my hon. Friends many hours of debate during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act to convince the Government that they should start thinking about diversifying away from the Channel tunnel entrance. On the fifth occasion, when we asked them at least to persuade BR to look at the ways in which we could best utilise the tunnel for the regeneration of many of the industrial areas in the north of England, Scotland and Wales, the Minister conceded what is now section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act. There will now be consultations between BR and the Channel tunnel group as to how best the north can take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Channel tunnel. However, without electrification of the midland main line, one of the major industrial parts of the United Kingdom—south Yorkshire—may be left out yet again.
The hon. Member for Hallam mentioned Doncaster. I will not tell any secrets out of school, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you and I are going to see exactly where the freight interchange will be. I have no doubt that the weight of evidence is on your side, because there will be electrification through to Doncaster. Therefore, I have no doubt that you will allow me the latitude to say that at least the midland main line should be electrified, because it would couple up with the major freight interchange established in the 1960s—the most advanced in Europe —at Tinsley. Unfortunately, because of the decline in industry, that has not been used, but the infrastructure is there, and it would be easy to make it one of the major freight terminals for the north if there were electrification there. That would give south Yorkshire a major asset for its regeneration.
Earlier, we heard that an urban development corporation has been declared there, and that a number of initiatives are being introduced, including an airport and the development of a science park. However, we are short of the electrification that is needed. I was talking to an Australian business man who flew into Heathrow, went on the tube to St. Pancras and then spent nearly three hours trying to get to Sheffield. He said that it is deplorable that those trying to make major investments in south Yorkshire could not get a better transport system, because that was a major deterrent to business men in the north of England. It is important that the speed of the line should be increased considerably, because, if it is not, such business men will be deterred from visiting the area and making the investments that are so badly needed.

Mr. Patnick: Is it not a fact that people travel to Doncaster, are met by company cars, and then driven to Sheffield?

Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Some of my colleagues and I travelled on the Doncaster line the other night on a train on which every seat had been pre-booked, so a considerable number of people were standing. Many passengers were business men going to the Rotherham, Barnsley and Sheffield areas. They were being ferried by company cars from Doncaster to their destinations. That is ludicrous.
The electrification of the midland main line could be a major boost for the steel industry, because a considerable amount of steel is used in the electrification structures. We should seriously consider how we can assist our steel industries with major structural developments such as this.
I am about the third generation of Members of Parliament from the Sheffield area who have been arguing not just for electrification, but for the speeding up of the line. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears, but now all the way down the line people are saying that, unless we are given at least part of the investment that BR is putting into the rest of its rail infrastructure, we shall be at a major disadvantage in the regeneration of our economies and industries. I hope that the Minister will take on board the serious points that have been made both on the Floor of the House tonight and by people and councils of all political complexions. We are all at one on the importance, at least, of the development of the midland main line, for many reasons.
In the next few years there will be two specific events which I hope will lay down bench marks and give the Government some spur to encourage British Rail. The first will take place in 1991—the world student games. We do not want to bring in the thousands of visitors to south Yorkshire on decrepit, broken-down railway lines with second-class facilities.
The second event is the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993. We do not want to be put at a disadvantage yet again because of the difficulty of getting in and out of that area in comparison with other areas.
It is important that the electrification should go beyond Leicester to south Yorkshire. We would be satisfied if the electrification ended in Sheffield and we assisted Barnsley and Rotherham later.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), I regret that Mr. Speaker was unable to select the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is inconceivable that the Bill should go ahead without the inclusion of a firm commitment from British Rail for the electrification of the midland main line. Such a move is logical and essential. We have already had the electrification of the west coast main line, and we read daily about the electrification of the east coast main ine. We now need a definitive and certain plan for the electrification of the midland main line beyond Leicester.
The importance of the midland main line has often been misunderstood. It is the second most important transport corridor in Britain, paralleling the MI motorway. The midland line links many major centres in the midlands, including Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Alfreton, Loughborough, Market Harborough, Kettering and


Welwyn. Hon. Members representing constituencies in Yorkshire have already spoken about its importance in south Yorkshire, where it links Sheffield and Chesterfield, and in west Yorkshire, where it links Leeds and Wakefield. It is not some backwater line that has been left over from pre-nationalisation days. It is a vital artery which runs through the heart of Britain. We neglect the well-being of that vital artery at our peril.
I have been told that it makes no economic sense to improve the midland main line. That is a fallacy, because it serves major centres of population, and without doubt it is on a par with the west coast and east coast main lines. It is certainly on a par with both the west and east coast main lines as the highest earner per route mile—£151,000 per route mile in 1984. British Rail has stressed that the costs on the route are too high and that it is uneconomic and difficult to run. On occasions, it has quoted running costs as £52,000 per route mile.
It is well known that the diesel high-speed trains running on the route are expensive to service and are not really cost effective. There is an extremely good argument for electrification on economic grounds. What is sometimes referred to as the sparks effect shows that a 1 per cent. reduction in journey time generates a 1 per cent. increase in revenue. If we take that a stage further, electrification of the midland line would generate at least a 25 per cent. increase in revenue. That is a stunning figure.
We need action now. It should not be left for the future. The lead time of such a capital project is not short. In fact, it will be about six years from the time of authorisation to the time that electrification can be completed. A little later in my speech I shall allude to further cogent reasons for pressing on right now because of the immense developments in travel that are about to overtake us. We require the go-ahead in 1988, which would ensure that the service was in place in 1994.
Another argument against the midland line is that it is a difficult railway to run compared with the east coast main line.

Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend envisages the midland line being electrified by 1994. Does he think that that would be early enough, bearing in mind that the Channel tunnel is due to come into operation in 1993? Would it not be advantageous if the two dates were to coincide?

Mr. Tredinnick: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who has put so much time and effort into the midland electrification project. I shall refer to the Channel tunnel later in my speech. We cannot ignore it, and no doubt we should have electrification sooner rather than later.
One of the arguments against the midland electrification is the so-called difficulty of the curved track. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is not in his place. He would know whether in the days of yore the east coast main line was the Great Northern line or the Great Eastern line. I cannot hope to put across the point with the same wisdom as the hon. Gentleman, but I am told on good authority that the so-called curve problem would be resolved by the introduction of new rolling stock. The new 140 mph Electra class 91 locomotives and the mark IV coach which can tilt on curves are just the solution for the midland line.
We now know that that train will be introduced on the east coast line in 1989. If it were introduced on the midland line, it would cut journey times by 25 per cent. The journey from Leicester to London would take just 58 minutes, and that from Sheffield to London just 110 minutes. I see the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) nodding in agreement. That would be a wonderful boost for the east midlands and for Yorkshire.
What is the converse of all that? If electrification does not go ahead, what will it mean for the east midlands, for my constituency of Bosworth and for the hosiery and knitwear town of Hinckley and its burgeoning new industries? What will it mean for Hinckley and for the people who reside in Anstey, Ulverscroft, Groby and Ratby who commute into the city of Leicester? It will mean long-term economic disaster. If we ignore the midland main line and do not modernise it, the line will die. That will affect our constituents and lead to economic suicide.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: An electric train that runs through my constituency from Gatwick to Victoria station has led to increased economic activity in the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that an excellent train such as that, with an excellent speed, generates industrial activity?

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a helpful point. Improved communications and infrastructure lead to increased industrial activity, which increases the revenue that goes to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport is taking note of that.

Mr. Snape: I hesitate to intervene during the hon. Gentleman's most interesting speech. The whole world might agree that the electrification of the railways generates greater economic activity, but unfortunately the Government do not think so. They insist on strict economic criteria that exclude the provisions that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I hope that he will be able to convince the Minister as well as the rest of the House.

Mr. Tredinnick: I must admit that, in a sense, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hesitated about raising that point, but my constituents are concerned about the constraints that have been imposed on British Rail. I am a great believer in efficiency and effectiveness. I should hate the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me for one second, but there is a feeling that British Rail is having to trim on the midland main line in order to support the west coast and east coast main lines.

Mr. Patnick: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of British Rail owning the track and the signalling and other equipment, and private trains running on the line? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, really!"] Opposition Members say, "Oh, really," but that is no different from—

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman ought to put his money where his mouth is.

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman says that I should put my money where my mouth is. I recollect that Opposition Members used that argument when bus services were deregulated. They said that deregulation would result in no bus services. [HON. MEMBERS:


"Speech."] It is not a speech; it is an intervention. It is now possible to catch a bus from Sheffield to any other city in the north, but Opposition Members said that that could not be done. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) should consider the possibility of British Rail running the system, with private trains being used on the line.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I suspect that Opposition Members, who are smiling at my hon. Friend's helpful intervention, may have to think long and hard about what he has said. The electrification of the midland main line may have to be carried out with private funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has done a great deal of hard work on this issue. I shall leave him to make that point when he speaks later in the debate, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members may have to bite the bullet.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully. Is he suggesting that electrification is an end in itself, or that it is a means of securing a better service for his constituents? If it is a means of obtaining a better service for his constituents, he may wish to take into account the fact that the HST trains are capable of a far higher speed than they are using on the line. It is line limitation, not the form of traction that is used, that is causing the slower speeds about which he complains. It is not true to say that electrification will lead to faster services than can now be provided. The existing HSTs are limited to 100 mph, but they are capable of 125 mph.

Mr. Tredinnick: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the research that I have seen shows conclusively that the new high-speed rolling stock that is able to tilt on curves would lead to faster services. I am led to believe that trains would be able to travel at 140 mph on the Leicester line.

Mr. David Ashby: Is it not right that the existing HST trains will soon be 25 years old? They are quite ancient. The existing line has its limitations, but new rolling stock would be able to travel much faster on it.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The rolling stock often covers 1,000 miles a day and it will come to the end of its useful life in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Ashby: Some of it already has.

Mr. Tredinnick: Yes. The present rolling stock is not as reliable as electric trains. If, because of a constituency crisis, hon. Members had to drive to their constituencies in cars with 120,000 miles on the clock, would they feel happy about driving out of New Palace Yard in such cars? I should not be happy about doing so. Ancient vehicles require more tender loving care, which can be translated into increased maintenance costs.

Mr. Snape: Would the hon. Gentleman care to refute the Minister's argument by suggesting that the yuppies who have moved to Norwich and Ipswich have done so largely because of improved communications after electrification of the railway line? I hope that he will be able to convince the Minister that electrification has been achieved with 20-year-old electric locomotives cascaded —to use the lovely word that is used by Department of

Transport advisers—from other parts of the country? If that can be done with 20-year-old locomotives, what could be done in Sheffield, Bosworth and Doncaster with brand new electric locomotives and rolling stock?

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. I intend to refer to the effect of changing attitudes to travel—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not stray too far from the British Railways (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Tredinnick: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the point will be relevant.
The hon. Member referred to yuppies. I am surprised that he did not refer to a member of his party who features in the Evening Standard today as having bought a yuppified house.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to "cascading". My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, the hon. Member for Leicester, East and I would be happy to have a few more high-speed trains cascading down the Leicester line. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has fought long and hard to get such services reinstated, and has achieved much. A certain number of east coast main line trains will cascade over on to the midland line. However, we return to the point of how reliable they will be. That rolling stock will be wearing out, and surely it is better to bite the bullet early, bring in the new electric trains and thereby cut costs.
I have referred to economic disaster in Leicestershire in the long term. There will not be economic disaster overnight, but in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, what will happen when there are main arteries running either side of a prosperous county such as Leicestershire? It will be economic suicide for the east midlands, and Leicester, Derby, Loughborough, Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough will lose their inter city services and be demoted to secondary status. These towns and cities cannot be served acceptably from the east coast main line. The regional transport link provided by the midland line will be lost. If British Rail decides in its wisdom to divert the main line traffic off the midland main line and down the east coast main line, I see no future for the midland main line. The midlands will be in a terrible state.
We have touched on why we should have electric trains. We want them because they are more reliable than diesels and cost much less to maintain. With electrification, we would say goodbye to cancellations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam faces this problem. He has a lot of trouble getting back to his constituents. We know what a dedicated constituency Member he is. He is always there at the platform, hoping to get home to hold another surgery.
Electrification would solve the problem. There would be fewer delays and there need not be so many back-up locomotives. The amount of equipment necessary to back up the existing rolling stock is a problem. We have all been on train journeys all over the country where diesels are running and seen the cancellations and perhaps suffered when, unfortunately, it has not been possible to bring into service another half of a high-speed train unit. Such problems would end with electrification.
By the year 2000 the InterCity 125s will be nearly 25 years old and will have been travelling 800 to 1,000 miles a day, but trains will have been replaced on the east coast main line after just 13 years of service. Plans need to be


made now for the modernisation and electrification of the midland main line. If it can be done on the east coast main line, it can certainly be done on the midland main line.
The arguments put forward by British Rail to electrify the east coast main line have not been put forward for the midland main line, but the same arguments apply, as I hope hon. Members agree. My fear for Leicestershire is that it is in danger of becoming a rail transport backwater.

Sir John Farr: A museum.

Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend is right. The failure to electrify and to put new rolling stock into Leicestershire will mean that growth will be restricted and businesses hindered. Where will we be when the European market is opened up in 1992? There will be an incredible new market, offering tremendous opportunities, and suddenly we will be trying to compete and to export our goods to that exciting market. What will there be? In the midlands there will be antiquated rolling stock and old cast-offs from the east coast main line—thank you very much, east coast main line. The midland will be a sort of cast-off centre line, with the fast services going up either side of it.
The fact—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will support me—is that business will not locate where there are old-fashioned railway links. Business demands, and is entitled to, good communications. That is the way towards regeneration. I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.

Mr. Patnick: It is interesting that the journey time on the Leicester-St. Pancras section has increased, although British Rail promised to reduce it once resignalling was completed at the end of 1987. The journey time from Sheffield to London is two hours 35 minutes, which means 60 mph with, typically, six intermediate stops. It is a matter of time and speed. I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport—I have heard that one should believe what Ministers say—but these trains do not run anywhere near 100 mph. It is said that they travel at 60 mph.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, yet again, for his wisdom in amplifying my points.
Running on from that—no doubt you will be glad that I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the demand for rail services is another aspect of the issue. That demand is increasing. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was good enough to draw my attention to the effect of people moving away from town. The trend is illustrated in the east midlands —in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire—in house prices. Leicestershire is the sixth most prosperous county in Britain, and that is largely due to the policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That might not, of course, be everyone's idea, and I should hate in saying that to lose the all-party support that exists. There is a feeling of warmth in the Chamber.

Sir John Farr: On reflection, does my hon. Friend think that some of the popularity must be due to the quality and calibre of local Members of Parliament?

Mr. Tredinnick: As a new Member I hesitate to make that point, but I accept my hon. Friend's wisdom. I have

relied on his advice and help and, I hope, learnt quite a lot from him, not least from his approach to the Bill—which may not be lost on the Opposition.
As I was saying before that helpful intervention, the impact of the changing travel pattern all over the country is illustrated by increased property prices. Property prices around Harborough have increased by about 50 per cent. in much less than a year. In Hinckley, the heart of my constituency, property prices have increased by one third in six months. I am told that at stations on the east coast main line, such as Grantham and even Melton Mowbray, commuters are queuing to get on the trains. Those commuters have an impact on property prices. Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Leicester, East, may not think that that is a good idea, but it is happening and we must face it.
With that changing pattern, it is absurd to argue that there is insufficient demand to support a vastly improved service on the midland main line. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and the hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the impossibility of finding a seat on a train without a reservation. With such a situation, it is impossible to argue that there would not be sufficient demand or revenue. It has been argued that if we increase the revenue by 1 per cent., we increase the speed and effectiveness of the trains by 1 per cent. Surely, if there is a 25 per cent. increase in revenue, there will be plenty of passengers to pay for that.
I should like to draw to the attention of hon. Members an article in today's Daily Mail, which supports that point. It is entitled "City Exodus in the Quest for Good Life" and states:
The quest for a better life is leading more and more people away from the cities and suburbs, a survey reveals today.
That is no quack survey. It is not one of those spurious polls that are thrust at hon. Members from time to time, stating that 75 per cent. of people are in favour of something and one then finds that the sample consists of six people. It is not one of those polls for which one pays 50p and then gets into a tangle with the taxman because one forgets to make out the sum to the constituency association, pays it in direct and is then accused of not declaring it. This is a survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
This trend has been going on for a long time. I find it strange that British Rail has not cottoned on to that pattern of moving away from the cities. In 1931, there were 6·7 million people in inner London, whereas there are now only 3·9 million. They have gone out to the shires. They like it out there. The OPCS spokesman said:
The city is becoming more and more of a workplace rather than somewhere to live.
One can argue that the same is true of the city of Leicester. Villages in my constituency are becoming more and more interested in computers—[Interruption.] I mean that they are important as commuter bases. I have obviously tickled the sense of humour of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. At one time I worked in the computer industry, and I sometimes get my computers and commuters muddled. One can get into frightful tangles if one is making a sales pitch to computers for commuters! It can be difficult.

Mr. Snape: I shall let the hon. Gentleman sort out his computers from his commuters. He is making a creditable effort and I hope that the Government Whips will recognise that.
Let us return to the Bill and the important point that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make before he got mixed up with his computers and commuters. The effects of electrification on lines in his constituency and on the midland main line would be beneficial, and the Minister should take that into consideration when British Rail submits proposals to electrify those lines.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for guiding me back to the points that I now hope to make.
There are three lines in my constituency. There is the charming Market Bosworth light railway. I recommend hon. Members to visit my constituency in the summer so that they can chug along by steam. There is the important link from Hinkley to Nuneaton and beyond in one direction, and to Leicester in the other direction. That is a congested service and I frequently receive letters about it.
If the main line to Leicester is electrified, we are in with a tremendous chance. We should branch it out and electrify that cross-route. The electrification of other lines to form a grid is most important, particularly for Yorkshire Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam might help me on this. As I understand it, it is possible to link into York a range of cross-routes. When the main line is in place we will obtain added value simply by branching out electrified lines. We should be able to channel commuters on to that line to make it viable.
There are four key points that make the electrification of the midland line a more feasible proposition than it was before. The introduction this year of the 140 mph Electra class 91 locomotives could cut the midland journey times by 25 per cent.

Mr. Patnick: Dick Turpin's trip to York set me thinking about this point. I inquired whether there was a link between Doncaster, on the route to York, and Sheffield. I discovered that that link was run, not by British Rail, but by South Yorkshire passenger transport executive. British Rail's press release—I apologise to the House for having lost the front sheet—states:
This together with a new approach to track maintenance under which the engineers are being given longer at each site to maximise the amount of work they can do during the time available, means that the impact of track maintenance work is much more predictable and suitable allowances and suitable allowances can be built into timetables before they are published.
It appears that British Rail is aware that something is wrong with the track and is introducing new machinery to speed up the trains.

Mr. Tredinnick: I have considered only the question whether fast trains can use that track, but my hon. Friend is right. The issue of the new trains and track is relevant. As a result of the development of the brilliant new trains, the amount of money needed to be spent on relaying the track will be reduced. The French had to lay a completely new track for the 160 mph train from Paris to Lyons, at vast expense. The genius of the British Rail train is that it can run on conventional curves.
That is the first key difference between the situation that exists now and that which existed a couple of years ago. The second key difference is the subject of the Bill, and that is the redevelopment of the King's Cross-St. Pancras area

by the British Rail property board, to include the new cross-London mainline station for InterCity and Channel tunnel trains which, of course, will have direct links to the midland main line.
We have already seen dramatic developments in British Rail's and London Transport's approach to rail travel in London. I thought that it was an absolute scandal that so many lines, such as the one that runs by Stamford bridge and Chelsea football ground, were not open to passenger services. I could never understand why certain railway lines around London were not used.
Great things are happening. We now have the Snow Hill tunnel, albeit for light traffic, for Network SouthEast. The new King's Cross-St. Pancras development is a super-Snow Hill, with its 12 platforms at a cost of £100 million, being sunk way below the surface. We in this great capital city will suddenly find ourselves with a fantastic through station, an InterCity station of a quality that we would hardly have conceived possible until the plan was drawn up.
We shall have not only easy passenger access, which will link the east coast main line, the Great Midland or midland railway lines, but a north London cross-link. Of course, those railways are short additions to the line. They have to run only about 100 yd of tunnel on the midland line and about 400 or 500 yd on the others. They are relatively cheap to do. The idea of bringing a network of trains from the east coast main line and the midland main line into a through station in London is wonderful. We have super high-speed trains which do 140 mph, and superb new facilities being built. When we link that to my next point, which relates to the Channel tunnel, we are talking about some sort of railway network.
The Channel tunnel will be a reality in 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough was quite right to say that I had been talking about 1994. When we talk about the midland main line electrification, we are really talking about 1993. That is the key year. If we do not get our act together for 1993, there will be all kinds of congestion and problems. There is the issue of where we go. We will have a funnel with the east coast and the west coast main lines, and, I hope, the midland line coming into the fantastic new station. How will they go out the other side? I cannot quite recall, but I do not think that they can go out through the Snow Hill tunnel, because it was built for lightweight traffic, but I may be wrong. I introduced my remark by saying that I was not sure.
The point that I want to make—never mind the Snow Hill tunnel—relates to the situation that faces Channel tunnel traffic running between London and the south coast. A couple of years ago I was fortunate to be able to go to Japan and travel with a special train pass around the four Japanese islands. One can travel at a tremendous rate around Japan and see it very well. At Tokyo airport there is not only an ordinary Japanese rail network, but a private system, which was built through the suburbs to alleviate the tremendous traffic that flows to Tokyo airport.
With the expected volume of traffic going through the Channel tunnel and the enonnous development on the French side—I am not saying that we do not have a development of tremendous credit, and more credit to my hon. Friend the Minister for pushing ahead with it—on the basis of my experience, there must be a case for building an entirely new railway line down to the south coast. I am thinking of a private line. If constituents are to have a


proper service to get their goods through the tunnel to Europe—to Berlin, down to Naples, Lisbon and other destinations—I wonder whether it will be feasible, however brilliant the signalling system is, to run heavy trains on that commuter system.

Mr. Keith Speed: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend. Any sympathy that I may have had for his case is fast evaporating if he wants to drive a new railway line down through the suburbs of south-east London, through Surrey, Kent and my constituency. We have long debates about the tunnel. This is a debate about the British Railways (No. 2) Bill. I urge my hon. Friend to stick to the midland main line, which I am sure he knows well, and leave Network SouthEast to hon. Members who know it well.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for preventing me from straying. I was not advocating building a railway line across a green belt, but it is possible to run lines along existing lines. That is the way it is done in Japan. As we are tackling the problem in such a sophisticated way, with the tremendous mainline station in London and all the money that will be spent on it, it may be necessary to take some action.

Sir John Farr: The point that my hon. Friend is trying to make, and making well, is that the chunnel—the Channel tunnel—is of no use to the east midlands unless the London-midland line is electrified. The Channel tunnel will be used only by electrified trains. Therefore, without the electrification of the London-midland line, the Channel tunnel offers no opportunities to the east midlands.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me on that point.
We have a sophisticated new transport system. It must be sensible to make improvements to the track for the Channel tunnel—I shall leave it at that—but the midlands should be included in it.
Hon. Members will recall that trains that do not run on the new electrified track will not be able to go to Europe. That is of tremendous concern. On the east coast and west coast main lines, high-speed trains will race through to goodness know where—right to the southern foot of Italy. The constituents of the hon. Member for Leicester, East will have to go to King's Cross or St. Pancras, and change there. That is not right. If the midland main line is electrified, two trains a day will run from Leicester to Europe. That will be wonderful.
The towns and cities that are served by the midland main line will enjoy that superior service only if it is electrified. In contrast, the west coast route will receive at least four day services and two night services, while the east coast route, which serves a smaller population—this is a significant point—will have three day trains and one night service. Where is the justice in that?

Mr. Patnick: About 12 trains a day run from the major cities of Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham to London and back, whereas smaller towns such as Kettering and Wellingborough have about 16 to 18 trains a day, even though InterCity provides a service to all those major towns and cities. Even without the electrification, which I

dearly want, I contend that areas such as those represented by my hon. Friend and myself are badly served by British Rail.

Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend puts his case eloquently and speaks from the heart. I speak from the heart, and I assure hon. Members that if I did not feel so strongly about this issue I would not be advancing it in the way that I am.

Mr. Snape: What about a fatigue allowance?

Mr. Tredinnick: I am not sure that a fatigue allowance would be permitted.
The Channel tunnel is soon to be completed, there is the new St. Pancras-King's Cross terminal, with its wonderful new underground platforms, there are the new high-speed trains and there will shortly be a new cross-London market of 12·5 million people. It will be feasible to run trains from Sheffield to Brighton, so the market for travel will increase enormously. British Rail has recently run more trains through the old West Kensington station—

Mr. Snape: Kensington Olympia.

Mr. Tredinnick: If trains ran through the old West Kensington station they might run into a District line train, and that could cause all kinds of complications.
There will shortly be a vastly increased travel market. When a service is increased and routeing is improved, there is an increase in demand. That has been well illustrated by what has happened to long-haul air routes around the world. One can now buy a round-the-world ticket from firms in London for £800. Is it surprising that demand has rocketed? There is now a better global service, and its cheap price has increased demand.

Mr. Patnick: To assist my hon. Friend, I shall give a quotation from a British Rail press release dated 1 March. It concerns an investment of £306 million in the east coast main line to London. It says:
The secret lies in new engineering techniques and the purchase of 11 track stabilising machines. These permit trains to run at full speed as soon as engineering work is finished.
It continues, and this is where the savings will be made:
The result is a 16 per cent. savings in track laying costs"—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would care to make his own speech? He is making many interventions. An intervention is a pertinent comment or a question to the hon. Member who has the Floor. Will the hon. Gentleman make his pertinent comment and allow the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) to proceed with his speech?

Mr. Patnick: I think that I was expecting too much assistance from Opposition Members. The press release says:
InterCity will save £1,000 per day in brake wear on the London-Edinburgh journey alone, and £213,000 a year in fuel savings from a smoother ride.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall have words with him after the debate about attempting to lead the House astray.
If you will forgive the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to get into a loop, but I must return to the issue of curves. The implications of what has been said by


the opponents of the electrification of the midland main line is that the new high-speed tilting trains cannot run on that track. On 30 October 1975, an advanced passenger train E, a test train, ran from Leicester to London in 58 minutes. Let it never be said that that is impossible. It ran on the old unimproved track with its problems and curves, and since then the track has been developed, so there could be an even better service.

Mr. Snape: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British Rail management was so impressed by the performance of the APTE that it ran the train straight into the scrap yard in 1980 and no one has seen it since?

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. There are times when efficiency involves cutting certain projects. I may be out of order when I say that the TSR2 was cut by I forget which Government. I think that it was the Labour Government who cut that brilliant technological project.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman was still at nursery school then.

Mr. Tredinnick: I remember that happening when I was at school and it had a great effect on me and—I was about to say my honourable schoolmates—my not so honourable colleagues. Indeed, as far as I remember, most of them were thoroughly dishonourable and disreputable. We had fairly extensive opportunities to study railways there and my interest came about because I always had a Boy's Own interest in trains. There is a valid point in that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because if one studies train sets at an early age, one develops an affinity with them and that makes it much easier to understand these complexities.
Having been slightly flippant, I must return to a serious and important point, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East may care to note it. So far in this debate we have not heard a word about what will happen to the east coast main line electrification engineers who are building the line. What will happen to them when the line is completed? We have a brilliant, dedicated team of people. Are we to break up the team? I say no, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to give a commitment that that superb team of engineers who are powering the east coast main line electrification northwards should have their jobs guaranteed and should be switched to another project—

Mr. Snape: For life.

Mr. Tredinnick: I did not intend to score political points tonight, because I was looking for the hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Patnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) does not have a job for life?

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, but in the spirit of the debate in which we seem to have all-party agreement on this midland main line electrification it would be churlish of me to try and score points off the hon. Gentleman, although I am tempted to do so.
Electrification is not just an issue for Members of Parliament. The House should be aware that Leicestershire county council, Derbyshire county council, Nottingham county council and Sheffield city council are

sponsoring a study to reinforce the case for electrification. Hon. Members will recognise that as a clear illustration of the deep and heartfelt feeling that exists in and around the east midlands. My constituents will be aggrieved if they do not have the same sort of services as others when the Channel tunnel is built and amazing new rail links are built in London which will get them and their goods, such as their hosiery and knitwear exports, to Paris or wherever they want to go.
There is tremendous economic growth in my constituency. New companies are moving into the area and it is a major distribution centre. We need such a link, and we need this kind of support. I draw the House's attention to the fact that these county councils—perhaps unusually because of their different complexions and attitudes—have joined together to control the situation.
There was much that I hoped to say tonight—[Interruption.]

Mr. Patnick: I wonder whether I can assist my hon. Friend with his case for electrification. The journey time from London to Edinburgh is 25 minutes shorter, at four hours and 23 minutes. The journey from Newcastle to London is 269 miles, which is completed in three hours or less, at 90 mph. The fastest journey is two hours and 50 minutes. The fastest time for the journey from Leeds to London is two hours and eight minutes. Time, as we all know, and as Opposition Members will appreciate, is money.

Mr. Tredinnick: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is dropping a tactful hint when he says that time is money, but I assure him that I am not being paid for this delivery tonight. I am hesitant whether to leave some points to be made by my hon. Friends. One of my hon. Friends is shaking his head.

Mr. Graham Allen: The hon. Member mentioned the service to Leicester, and one of his hon. Friends tabled an amendment on the subject, which was not selected. He has also mentioned the cross-party support that there has been, not least from the Nottinghamshire county council, for further extension and electrification. Will the hon. Gentleman address some of his remarks to places slightly north of Leicester?

Mr. Tredinnick: I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will have a chance to make that point. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have not majored on Nottingham tonight, but, if I had, I might have had problems driving through my constituency tomorrow. The first thing is to get the line built to Leicester. That is what we are talking about. One of the arguments that is made about the electrification of the main line—[Interruption.]

Mr. Patnick: I advise the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that Nottingham was discussed before he graced the House with his presence. Nottingham has been included in our great plan.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We can have only one intervention at a time.

Mr. Tredinnick: I was saying, before yet another helpful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam, that there is one other argurnent—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ashby: There is one further point. My hon. Friend and I come from adjoining constituencies. Leicester is the central town for Leicestershire, but Nottingham is close to my constituency. A number of my constituents would be grateful for electrification through to Nottingham, which is their nearest centre. Large sectors of the county of Leicestershire would benefit also from electrification through to Nottingham. It is therefore in both our interests.

Mr. Tredinnick: In just outlining my speech, which is all I have had time to do so far, it has not been possible for me to go into the matters that pertain to other lines. However, it is very helpful that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has brought up this matter.

Mr. Allen: It is important that the hon. Gentleman clears up the contradiction. He has stated that he would not wish to return even to his own constituency if he added his voice to the issue of the wider scope for electrification. His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) said that there was a wider strategy. What I am asking my colleague the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) to elucidate—I am sure that he can do so at some length—is the strategy for electrification. Surely it is not a matter for parochial constituency interests and the idea that "It must go to my constituency and no one else's," because if that is the hon. Gentleman's view, electrification will not go to any hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He accuses me of having a constituency interest, but I cannot think that his interest in Nottingham is anything other than parochial. If he thinks a little more carefully about what I have said, he will realise that I have spent a lot of time on strategy and concentrated on Leicester because I am a Leicestershire Member and proud of it, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who has been good enough to listen to my words will know—

Mr. Vaz: Not for long.

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not for long."
I do not want to appear parochial, but we must take first things first.
I now want to turn to the success of the electrification of the St. Pancras-Bedford stretch. Before that line was electrified, we were told in a whole range of arguments why that could not be done; why it would be a great waste of money; why it could not possibly work; and that there was not the time, the people or the equipment to do it. All the old arguments were trotted out.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's September 1987 report, "British Railways Board: Network SouthEast" Cm 204, contains a case study of the St. Pancras-Bedford line electrification. It shows that once the initial difficulties had been overcome that part of the line became relatively profitable after electrification, and has remained so.
If hon. Members want further confirmation of that, they could go to the Library to ask for Mr. Michael Bonavia's 1986 hook, "Twilight of British Rail". Chapter 10, which is somewhat inaptly named "The electrifying

experience" because Bonavia is talking about closures, argues that the Bedford-Sheffield line is an obvious candidate for electrification. Bonavia states:
The Midland main line (Bedford to Sheffield) is an electrification scheme that would also be facilitated by the work already done".
This is the work to which I have already referred—the 50 miles of main line which, as he puts it, is now "under wires".
This would also be a conveniently self-contained project so far as the principal passenger services are concerned"—
—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait, because he then states:
more so in fact than the east coast main line.
Here we have an expert—

Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that Michael Bonavia's book was written before the onset of the 2·7 per cent. return which the Government now expect on InterCity services? Given that expenditure on InterCity services runs, as I understand it, to about £600 million and that the expected income would be £500 million, will the hon. Gentleman concede that the money to those that £100 million gap has to be found from somewhere and that it may well come through major closures on the very sections of lines that he is proposing should be electrified, and that that would be the responsibility of his own Government?

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for arguing the case for privatisation, or at least private investment. Typically for an Opposition Member, he thinks in terms of reductions, but we are talking about increasing the service. It may be important at times to have injections of private capital. Perhaps on another occasion, or even this evening, we will hear some profound and interesting proposals for alternative funding from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.

Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman has introduced the political spice that may have been missing from the debate by mentioning privatisation. Would not building up and boosting the east coast main line electrification make it the prime target for privatisation, so that there would be a major diversion of further services from the very lines that he would like electrified?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a wide debate, but it does not spread as far as privatisation.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for that intervention, because if the Government, in their wisdom, decided to privatise the east coast main line, the proceeds of that sale—

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman has said a great deal. I meant to say that we have had a warm feeling this evening because there has been—

Mr. Snape: It is rapidly cooling off.

Mr. Tredinnick: I would not want it to cool off. I was not hoping to make political points, and if I have been flippant, I had not intended to be—

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has not been flippant; he has been long-winded. He has been speaking for 70 minutes, largely due, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your and your predecessors' tolerance, and he has said little about the British Railways (No. 2) Bill. It might be amusing for


juvenile—or even senior—Conservative Back Benchers to delay legislation such as this, but it means that important work which could be done from one end of the railways to the other is delayed. I tell these Conservative Members for nothing that this is likely to lead to exchanges through the usual channels tomorrow.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate can, to some extent, extend beyond the contents of the Bill, but it must relate to the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman of that.

Mr. Tredinnick: The points that I have been making about the electrification of the main line from St. Pancras to Leicester and beyond have not been made lightly. I say that in all sincerity. It is essential to the east midlands and to the long-term well-being of my constituency. This has not been a time-wasting exercise, because this subject must be dealt with. If I did not feel so strongly about it, I would not be in the Chamber tonight.

Mr. Peter Snape: We have heard an interesting, albeit drawn-out speech from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), largely concerned with the need for the electrification of the former midland railway main line from St. Pancras, and I shall return to that subject in a moment.
First, however, I want to refer to the Bill and the detail of the works therein. Speeches by the Minister and myself are in no way intended to truncate the debate and, provided that they succeed in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, hon. Members on both sides are free to refer to the Bill at whatever length they like.
An unfortunate aspect of our parliamentary procedures is that when the British Railways Board—I rarely defend it because, unlike Conservative Members, I have no great faith in its philosophy or some of its policies—wants to carry out the smallest or mildest alteration to the existing railway network, or to construct any new lines to add to it, a Bill is necessary, and that enables hon. Members on both sides to block the work by tabling appropriate blocking motions. Indeed, hon. Members can raise the need for better or electrified railway services to and from their constituencies.
I wish that such procedures were available for our road network, but hon. Members will be aware that roads are built and maintained and the money spent without reference to the House. Without causing undue offence to the hon. Member for Bosworth, the fact that he spent so much time on the east coast main line illustrates that it is about time that our procedures regarding British Railways Bills should be reformed.
Work No. 1 in the Bill relates to the development of a spur railway at Battersea in connection with the development of Battersea power station as a leisure centre. I hope the House will note that that proposal is made with the financial support of the developers. I hope that the Minister can tell us that that financial support was a condition of planning permission for the development. If not, that support is none the less welcome, and perhaps it may set a precedent. If the envisaged use of the new leisure centre matches the forecasts, it is perhaps as well that a new railway line has been proposed; otherwise the

prospect of hon. Members entering or leaving this place by road would be considerably diminished. I hope that I shall not be considered parochial for saying that.
Work No. 4 relates to the construction of running loops east of Ashford for Channel tunnel traffic. The hon. Member for Bosworth touched upon that in his long-drawn-out contribution. Apparently his call for additional railway lines in Kent was resented by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). I regret that he is not in his place at present.
The hon. Member for Bosworth made a valid point about the inadequacy of the existing railway line between London and the Channel tunnel mouth. That inadequacy might be overcome if the running loops east of Ashford were extended as far as necessary in both directions to create a four-track main line between the mouth of the Channel tunnel and the new Channel tunnel terminus at Waterloo. I do not expect the instant agreement of the Minister to that proposal, but I hope that he agrees that the existing railway network is inadequate for the envisaged additional traffic when the Channel tunnel is open.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I should also like to comment on Work No. 7, which relates to the installation of barrier machines at a level crossing in Lincoln. The existing gates are to be replaced with full lifting harriers. I always believe that it is inherently unfair that 50 per cent. of the cost of such works must be met within British Rail's budget. The purpose of such barriers is to protect motorists from the consequences of their own stupidity. The practice of driving around half barriers as they are lifting or ignoring the warning lights place motorists in considerable danger and occasionally—as we saw a couple of years ago at Lock ington—places train travellers in some danger. We believe that the cost of such works should be met entirely from the roads budget, which appears endless when other matters are considered.
I return to the question of the midland main line and whether or not it should be electrified. Although it would be unfair to describe all hon. Members who are in the House at the moment as railway buffs, there is a consensus that the line should be considered for electrification. I think that proposal would be supported by hon. Members in the Chamber. With such proposals being judged as they are, and with the problems of proving the case financially, it is unlikely that the go-ahead for that will ever be given.
In an exchange at Transport question time on 18 April, the Minister said that the proposed electrification of the railway line between Manchester and Blackpool would cost £12 million. He should remember that he could not buy much motorway for that sum. The Minister thought that it was more cost-effective and efficient to use Sprinter diesel multiple units between those two points.
If one considers the Manchester-Blackpool line in isolation on a strictly cost return basis, that might be true, but we did not build the M55 motorway to Blackpool on such a basis. It would be stupid to consider the M55, which runs from a field north of Preston to a roundabout at Squires gate, solely as a road linking Preston and Blackpool. No one would build a motorway on that basis. Yet only 10 days ago the Minister said that it would cost £12 million to electrify the Manchester-Blackpool railway line. He was considering it in isolation; he did not take into account the fact that it would give British Rail an electrified diversionary line to Scotland. It would enable


trains from Euston to Scotland to go via Manchester, although that would take longer. The possibility of generating more traffic is ignored.
A similar proposal for the midland main line is likely to be greeted in the same way. Of course, the midland main line from St. Pancras is electrified as far as Bedford. The Minister may need to consult his advisers, but perhaps he could tell the House—if not tonight, at some time in the future—whether such electrification proposals would be considered on the basis of the additional traffic which would be generated between London and Sheffield or London and Leicester, or whether they would be measured against the likely increase in traffic between Bradford and Leicester or Bedford and Sheffield.
Given the track record of the Department of Transport in these matters, the Department is likely to say that, because the line is already electrified as far as Bedford, as part of Network SouthEast rather than the InterCity network, it can take into consideration only passengers travelling north from Bedford to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. I do not say that that is how the proposal would be evaluated, but it would not surprise me if it were done in that way. I hope that the Minister will let us know exactly how proposals for the electrification of the whole of the former midland main line from St. Pancras would be evaluated.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) talked about bad late-night connections from Sheffield. If one looks at British Rail's timetable, it is non-political to point out that anyone who wishes to head north out of London faces the same problem. Those who wish to go south from London are better treated.

Mr. Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I will give way after I have made this point.
It is a fact that those for whom late-night services have been traditionally provided live south of London, so far as railway management is concerned. All-night services have long been provided from stations such as Waterloo and Victoria for those people privileged—if that is the right term—to live south of London, yet such services have never been provided for those of us who are, perhaps, wise enough to live in the frozen north.

Mr. Patnick: There are three trains serving the London to Doncaster route. There is one at 22.55 hours, which arrives in Doncaster at 1.29; one at 23.20 hours, arriving at 1.20; and another at 23.59, which I do not commend to the House, arriving at 4.03 hours. Again, it is the east coast route that is provided with the rolling stock and a better timetable.

Mr. Snape: I largely agree with the point that I believe the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. British Rail's costs are largely fixed because the equipment is in situ and the track exists. It is a short-sighted policy on its part not to run trains. I do not like to be fair to British Rail, but one must recognise that such a policy is forced upon it by the Government, because it is often more economical not to run trains. The ultimate—and I hope that I am not writing the Tory party's next manifesto for it—is to save £1 billion a year by not running any trains at all. I do not know how one would tackle the congestion, but such a philosophy might appeal to the hon. Member for Hallam and his right

hon. Friend the Minister, and to those in the Department of Transport who prefer to play at road building and road repairing than sending cheques to the British Railways Board to pay for a proper rail system. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point and hope that it will receive a response from the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of British Rail's second-class service to Sheffield. I am sure he will join us in our next censure motion, or whatever, on the Department of Transport for the niggardly way in which it has approached the funding of British Rail services.

Mr. Patnick: That is not what I said.

Mr. Snape: I do not want to ruin the hon. Gentleman's promotion prospects, but I did not make that speech—he did. The logical conclusion to his speech is that there should be greater funding for the midland main line to Sheffield, and we certainly agree. The hon. Gentleman also joined my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) in emphasising the need for greater expenditure on the provision of Channel tunnel services, with which I am sure we also all agree.
One reason why the Opposition were anxious to put clause 40 of the Channel Tunnel Bill onto the statute book, ensuring that British Rail will by the end of next year publish its countrywide plans for both passenger and freight traffic, was that we knew full well—as does the rest of the House, if it were honest—that British Rail puts forward no proposals for investment, electrification, or whatever, unless they meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport.
The Minister says more often than some of his predecessors, "I have received no proposals from British Rail about electrification or about Channel tunnel developments for freight facilities, extra passenger facilities, new locomotives and rolling stock. But if I do receive any such proposals, I will consider them." All of us, if we are honest, will recognise that that is a con. Regular contact is maintained between the Minister's Department and the British Railways Board. The board is left in no doubt that if it makes proposals that do not meet the investment criteria previously laid down, retribution will be both swift and terrible. The result is that it does not put forward any proposals unless those proposals meet the strictly laid down financial criteria demanded by the Department.
I fear—and I believe that the House fears—that if such procedures are continued into next year, British Rail will once again be found wanting in regard to provision for additional Channel tunnel traffic and certainly in regard to hon. Members representing south of England constituencies. Britain will drown under a tidal wave of heavy goods vehicles.
Either the railway—including the midland main line —is properly equipped to take advantage of the additional traffic likely to be generated in 1993 when the Channel tunnel opens, or it is not. If it is not, I have no doubt that there will be additional pressure for duplicate motorways, for the widening of existing motorways and for even greater expenditure on the building and strengthening of bridges. That again might please the Minister and some of his colleagues, and it will probably delight many of his advisers in the Department of Transport, but I do not think for a moment that such proposals will make him popular with the electorate in the south of England.


Certainly such an approach would do nothing to gear up the north of England and the midland main line as far as Sheffield to enable it to take advantage of the additional traffic generated by the Channel tunnel.
This has been a fascinating debate on a Bill whose total expenditure comes to £7·8 million. I think that the hon. Member for Bosworth spent more than that in five minutes of his 75-minute contribution. It just goes to show that, of course, Conservative Members are in favour of public expenditure restraints—hut not when they affect their own constituencies.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful at this point if I give a brief indication of the Government's view on the Bill.
The Government have considered the Bill's content, and we have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the board. The Department has only one point outstanding with the Bill's promoters, and I hope that it will be cleared up satisfactorily.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) raised a number of points, particularly on the services provided by British Rail for his constituents. He will appreciate that the London-Sheffield timetable and the scheduling of train services are a commercial matter for British Rail. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) chuckles. Surely he does not really suggest that we in the House should start to draw up the timetables for British Rail's operations. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman made some sensible comments about the use of the House's time for purely constituency suggestions relating to major investment.

Mr. Snape: All that I suggest is that, as the Minister and his Department lay down the financial constraints under which British Rail must operate and tighten those constraints year by year—indeed, reduce the finance available for running British Rail services—he should not complain when I "chuckle", as he puts it, when he tells the House—misleadingly, in my view—that these are matters for British Rail management. He is the man with his fingers on the financial windpipe of British Rail, as we all know.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what has been happening under the present Government. We have been reducing the revenue subsidy to British Rail and increasing investment substantially. The investment figures that have now been approved by Ministers would have made him green with envy had he been a Minister in the previous Government, with responsibility for railways. He knows only too well that, had he been in a position at any time to improve investment on anything remotely approaching the scale on which I have had the privilege to improve it, he would have considered himself a very good friend to British Rail, the railway network, the railway unions and the travelling public. With the new timetables, the last train to Sheffield, at 21.40, is being speeded up by over a quarter of an hour. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will be delighted with that information.

Mr. Patnick: As I said, the problem is timing. I cannot see how hon. Members can be in the House and vote and still catch a train that went as they passed through the Lobby.

Mr. Mitchell: Next year there will be an additional service to Sheffield at around 11 o'clock in the evening, and that will enable my hon. Friend both to cast his vote and to get back to his constituency.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister claim credit for that, is it a matter for BR management or, most likely, does it have something to do with the usual channels?

Mr. Mitchell: I assure the hon. Member that I do not claim credit for it. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that this is part of British Rail's plans for the future, and we are debating the British Railways (No. 2) Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) clearly shares my enthusiasm for trains, although I regret that he does not share my enthusiasm for British Rail. He referred to the midland main line as a vital artery, and I wholly agree with him on that. However, he seeks electrification of that line on a number of grounds, some of which are not as firm as he had assumed. For example, he asserted that the high-speed trains that now service that line are 25 years old and clapped out, but that is not the case. They were built in 1975, and while I agree that there are points concerning their reliability which I shall draw to the attention of British Rail, it is not necessarily true that the only way of solving the problem is by scrapping them.
My hon. Friend also asserted that electrification of itself would increase speed. That is untrue. I can illustrate what I mean. The west coast is electrified and the maximum speeds on it are less than the speeds on the east coast main line with high-speed trains.

Mr. Tredinnick: Was I not correct to say that, if the new Electra class 91 locomotives and the mark 4 coaches were introduced on the line from St. Pancras to Leicester and beyond, they would have a dramatic increase in speed? I was not trying to mislead the House.

Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to clarify that point for my hon. Friend. As I have said, the west coast main line, which is electrified, is slightly slower than the east coast main line, which is not electrified. Therefore, it is not true that electrification of itself leads to higher speeds. In the case of the midland main line, the speed limitation is 100 mph and that is a restriction because of the track, the curves and junctions, and because of other such factors. Electrification does not change those limitations and electrifying it would not achieve the purpose that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: No, let me just finish this point.
My hon. Friend claims that the Electra, which is a 140 mph locomotive, would be faster. There is no point in having a faster engine if it cannot go at its maximum speed. My hon. Friend also asked whether tilting coaches would enable a higher speed to be achieved. He may be right, but tilting coaches do not require electrification. Indeed, he told the House that in 1975 the APT ran from Leicester to London in 58 minutes. However, he did not tell the House that it was not electrified. In fact, it is an illustration of the point that I am making that higher speed does not require electrification. That APT run used a gas turbine engine with two coaches and two power units. All the other traffic


was cleared off the line to give it a free run. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friend that electrification will not necessarily achieve the purposes he has in mind.

Mr. Snape: I hope that the Minister—albeit inadvertently—was not seeking to mislead his hon. Friend. The APT, which alas is in the scrapyard, was electrified eventually and used on the west coast main line. Does the Minister concede that electrification means faster point-to-point timing because of the greater acceleration of electrified locomotives and rolling stock? If diesel trains are just as efficient as electric trains, why have the Government approved the electrification of the east coast main line?

Mr. Mitchell: The decision between electric and diesel involves a careful technical assessment related to very heavy initial outlay on electrification and low operating costs, or low outlay on diesel and high operating costs. Which is the most economical way of providing the service depends upon the frequency of the service and a number of other factors.
I shall return to whether there may be a case for the electrification of the midland main line, but any assessment will not be on the grounds of speed put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. As I have demonstrated, and as my hon. Friend was kind enough to advise the House, the APT did that run in 58 minutes. It had a gas turbine engine and was not electrified. I understand my hon. Friend's desire for faster, more punctual and more reliable trains. However, before he advocates electrification as a means of achieving that, he needs to assure himself that there are no other more economic means of achieving the same objectives.
There is a somewhat vicarious relationship between the British Railways (No. 2) Bill and the intensity with which we have been discussing this aspect. I understand that my hon. Friend has definite views and ideas, which I hope he will discuss with British Rail. There are facts which, although my hon. Friend may not like them, he should discover, discuss and assess. I suggest that he talks with British Rail. If he is still not satisfied with what it is doing and how it proposes to go about it, my door is always open to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who wish to discuss the midland line. When he has spoken to British Rail, I shall be happy to discuss with him any conclusions he might have reached about the midland main line.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East rightly drew us back to the British Railways (No. 2) Bill and asked me some questions. The first concerned the Battersea leisure centre and its rail connection. I understand that the developer formed his own view that rail would enhance the viability of the project. Since the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and I share an enthusiasm for rail, we can take some delight in that commercial view. The hon. Member also asked me about the four-track lines he would like to see running from Ashford to the Channel tunnel terminal and from Ashford to Waterloo. The lines are judged adequate for the Channel tunnel, but we need to look carefully at the future level of demand, capacity and speed. That is why British Rail is assessing these matters. It is to report to me in June this year.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the speed on that line and to the amount of investment in it. Comparisons are

always made with what happens in France, but in France the TGV Nord, that will run from Paris to Calais, is primarily a line that is designed to go from Paris to Brussels and from Brussels to Amsterdam and Cologne. The relatively small section of line that has been constructed between Paris and Calais means that expenditure on Channel tunnel-related matters is very much less than the total expenditure on the TGV Nord. When that is compared with British Rail's expenditure proposals, the difference is not so great as is generally assumed. The fast train services in northern France to the Channel tunnel ride on the back of the Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam-Cologne plans.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether British Rail had put forward proposals and whether they met the Government's criteria. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as from this year, InterCity is operating commercially, thus fulfilling the policies of his party when in government, that travel between major urban centres should not be subsidised. I do not imagine that he will renege on the views of his party when in government. A return of 2·7 per cent. is an exceedingly low requirement.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether Britain would be crushed under a load of road vehicles. The Channel tunnel will ensure that an immense amount of freight that would otherwise have gone by road will go by rail.
There is now only one petitioner against the British Railways (No. 2) Bill. He will have an opportunity to present his objections to the Select Committee, which will be in a very much better position than the House to examine in detail the issues involved. It will have the added advantage of expert advice being at its disposal. I recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and that it should be allowed to proceed in the usual way to the Select Committee for detailed consideration.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 50.

Division No. 280]
[10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert
Butler, Chris


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cormack, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Couchman, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, Bob


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Durant, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Budgen, Nicholas
Fallon, Michael






Fenner, Dame Peggy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maude, Hon Francis


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Forth, Eric
Miller, Hal


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mills, Iain


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


French, Douglas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gale, Roger
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neale, Gerrard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hawkins, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rathbone, Tim


Holt, Richard
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Janman, Tim
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kilfedder, James
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfieid)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkwood, Archy
Speed, Keith


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Squire, Robin


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Livsey, Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter





Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Trippier, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and Mr. Michael Colvin.


Waller, Gary



Watts, John





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Macdonald, Calum A.


Armstrong, Hilary
McGrady, Eddie


Ashby, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Madden, Max


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Martlew, Eric


Buckley, George J.
Meale, Alan


Caborn, Richard
Michael, Alun


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morgan, Rhodri


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morley, Elliott


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Nellist, Dave


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Snape, Peter


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Tredinnick, David


Farr, Sir John
Vaz, Keith


Faulds, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N.


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wilson, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wray, Jimmy


Ingram, Adam



Knowles, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Licensing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert]

Orders of the Day — Licensing Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

PERMITTED HOURS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
( ) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays etc.), for the words "five hours beginning at two" there shall be submitted the words "four hours beginning at three".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment extends Sunday opening by one hour. It is right that I should re-emphasise to the House that, on previous occasions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I made it clear that it was not the Government's intention to extend licensing hours on Sunday. The reasons that we put forward were never reasons of principle. They were always conceded to be pragmatic reasons. We wanted to make it plain, and we made it plain to the House, that our objective in giving that assurance was to reconcile as many as possible to the passage of the Bill. That was a candidly stated reason. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members below the Bar of the House not participating in the debate kindly leave the Chamber or come and join us?

Mr. Hogg: I was reminding the House about the Government's position on this amendment when the matter was last before the House. However, when the amendment was discussed in another place, the Government were unable to persuade their Lordships to take a similar view. Consequently, the amendment was carried in the other place. The question that we now must decide is whether the Government should seek to persuade the House to try to reverse that amendment.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members are not particularly bothered one way or the other in relation to the extension of hours for Sundays? However, is the Minister aware that some of us are extremely concerned that the amendment appears to deal only with public houses? It does not appear to deal with the important matter of members' clubs. Will the Minister immediately clarify the position? Does the amendment relate only to pubs and ignore clubs?

Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, I shall certainly deal with it, but I hope that he will forgive me if I deal with it at the conclusion of my remarks rather than straight away.
I was saying that the question that now arises is whether the House should seek to reverse the amendment that was accepted in another place. The suggestion that I make to the House is that we should not. In all conscience, I cannot say that the amendment that was passed in the other place

was wrong in principle. I do not believe that it is wrong in principle. Moreover, it clearly meets a genuine demand. It is modest. Having regard to those three considerations, it seems to me to be nonsense to invite the House to disagree with the amendment. It is on that basis that I recommend that we agree with the amendment.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) raised a question about clubs. The amendment does not apply to clubs. I do not recommend that the House should enlarge clubs' opening hours to parallel what has been done to pub opening hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] I was in the process of explaining the two reasons why not. First, while the licensing regime as a whole applies to public houses, it does not apply to clubs. There is therefore no powerful reason why a relaxation in the licensing regime for pubs should automatically apply to clubs, unless clubs were to accept that the full body of the licensing law should apply to them, which is not a concession that they are willing to make.

Mr. Greg Knight: For a long time, pubs and clubs have enjoyed the same total number of opening hours, so why should we now be asked to differentiate?

Mr. Hogg: I was reciting two reasons why we should differentiate. I shall repeat the first reason because it is important. The licensing regime that applies to pubs does not apply to clubs. Unless clubs are prepared to accept, as a principle, that the entire licensing regime that now applies to pubs should also apply to them, I can see no compelling reason for treating the two the same.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I shall give way after I have finished my second point.
With regard to Sunday opening hours, the other place thought that there was a justification for extending what was generally regarded as the lunch-time hour on Sundays. As the House will know, clubs already have the facility to extend their opening hours to 3 o'clock. Therefore, under present law, clubs can do precisely what the other place decided pubs should be able to do.

Mr. Cunliffe: The Minister is attempting to quantify and qualify a principle. Will he now tell the House that clubs are permitted to open only for five and a half hours on a Sunday, compared with pubs, which are allowed to open for six and a half hours? There is a clear anomaly of one hour which discriminates against clubs. Will the Minister give the House a straight answer?

Mr. Hogg: Whatever else I can be criticised for, it is not for not giving a straight answer. The hon. Gentleman may not like the answer, but nobody could say that it was incomprehensible or other than straight. He may not like it, but the reasons are as I have stated them to be.
I shall repeat the first reason, because the hon. Gentleman obviously failed to understand it. The licensing laws that apply to public houses do not apply to clubs. It is curious that clubs say that on the one hand they should be treated more favourably than public houses, but on the other that they should be given exactly the same hours. Either they agree to the licensing regime being applied to them in its totality or they accept that, from time to time, there may be differences.
While it is perfectly true that under the proposal, if we accept it, there will be a difference between the total opening hours available to pubs and clubs, the narrow question considered in the other place was whether on Sundays pubs should be able to remain open until 3 o'clock. Under existing law, clubs are already able to do that.

Mr. David Clelland: The Minister will be aware that the differences between the licensing procedures of clubs and pubs have existed for many years and that pubs and clubs have been allowed the same number of hours. Will he explain why there should now be a difference in the total number of hours they are allowed?

Mr. Hogg: We come back to our starting point. The licensing laws in the more significant respects have always made a distinction between clubs and pubs. That is a distinction which clubs which to see perpetuated. Sometimes it works in their favour, and sometimes it does not. The narrow point that we are considering is whether we should relax the licensing hours for Sunday lunchtime by one hour. Clubs already have the capacity to do that, but pubs have not. The other place decided that an extension of one hour should be made for a Sunday, which is something that clubs can already do.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has given us an amazing account of the reasons why he has now changed his mind completely and is saying that we should accept the amendment. His speech was an attempt to justify the unjustifiable and to stand on its head all that the Government have previously said about this matter. His logic was an attempt to reconcile irreconcilable differences. His exchange with my hon. Friends proves that Labour Members, and, I suspect, some Conservative Members, know far more about the realities of licensing law for clubs and pubs than he does.
There are several reasons why this amendment creates difficulties. It goes back on all the previous promises that the Government have given on licensing laws. When the Bill was published, when we debated the issue on Second Reading, and when we discussed it in detail in Committee and on Report, the Minister and, indeed, the Home Secretary made it clear that there would be no change in the rules for Sundays. They said clearly that that was a matter for Sunday trading legislation, and it would have been better if the Government had left it at that.
The Government have behaved badly. I hope that the House is aware of exactly what went on in another place when the amendment was discussed. In another place the Minister, Earl Ferrers, said that amendments of this kind to extend drinking on Sunday should not be accepted, and he acknowledged that one of the reasons was that there would be difficulty in this House. When the amendment was moved in the other place the Government did not vote against it. The amendment went through on the nod, despite all previous assurances.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Lady concede that she and her hon. Friends are worried that the Government are doing something that will be immensely popular? Yet again, the Opposition are out of step with public opinion and she is now trying to cover that up.

Mrs. Taylor: I should have thought that Conservative Members would be worried that the Government were going back on assurances given to the House and the Committee on numerous occasions. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it was an act of deliberate Government policy to insert this measure into the Bill or whether the measure went through by accident because their Lordships were not paying attention.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It was not an act of deliberate Government policy—[Interruption.] I heard the sedentary intervention. It was inadvertence. There are two explanations. One is conspiracy, and the other is cock-up. [Interruption.] It was cock-up.

Mrs. Taylor: Having served in the Whips' Office, I am quite willing to believe in a cock-up by the Government rather than the conspiracy theory.
Now that this amendment has gone through the other place and we are faced with it this evening, we have to consider the problems that it creates. It should create problems in terms of honour on the part of the Government, who have given us these assurances. However, if we put those on one side, it does create other difficulties as well. First, it creates difficulties for those people who work in public houses. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who tabled an amendment, will wish to go into this in some detail, but the licensed house managers, USDAW, and other unions that represent people employed in this industry are extremely worried.

Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Member is arguing that public houses, by opening for an extra hoar on Sundays, could cause problems for employees. Will she tell us whether the Opposition's policy is to shut all public houses for all of Sunday?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) knows better than that. Having looked at the Bill in detail, I should have thought that he would have some concern for those people—especially husband and wife teams—who run many of our public houses and will be under considerable pressure from extended opening hours. Some people will be facing far longer working hours. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the brewers will be pressing managers to open all permitted hours. Proper agreements will not be reached between the brewers and the managers, and there will be extreme pressure on those people who work in the industry.
This morning I received a letter from someone in Cardiff, saying that no one has thought of the landlord. Sunday is the only time when the landlord and his family can go out or put their feet up for a well earned rest. Many families run pubs together, and we should be thinking of them. I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to pursue that point.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Lady not understand that the best time for any publican is Sunday lunchtime? It is family time and it is a very social time for visitors. Each publican wishes his cost centre—his pub—to be profitable. Therefore, it is an essential time for a publican. I think that the hon. Lady may be wrong when she is singing the case of the publican not wanting to work Sundays. Most publicans to whom I have spoken would welcome that extra hour, because of their profit centre.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to say that most publicans serve beer rather than tea, but that is another matter. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) gives an example of what Conservative Members think the Bill is all about. He mentioned profitability. That is all that the brewers are worried about. That is why we have the Bill. We should consider those who work in the industry. The husband and wife team is worthy of some consideration. I shall refer to the point about families later. That is another problem that the Bill will create.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says about employees in public houses. However, I do not think that we on this side can expect the Labour party to go overboard for this amendment because of its links with the trade union movement. Employees in public houses are in a collective negotiating position with the brewers. They will not accept extra work on Sundays without having agreed with the brewers their terms of employment for the extra hour that they will be asked to work. As it has been conservatively estimated that about 50,000 additional jobs could be generated by the Bill to which we are about to give our blessing, could the hon. Lady be a little more bullish about supporting what, in essence, is a good job-creation measure?

Mrs. Taylor: I did not realise that the Bill was being put forward as a job-creation measure. I thought that it was the pay-off to the brewers for their contributions during the last election. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman is forgetting the many difficulties that arise at present with the arbitration procedure between licensed house managers and the brewers. The managers have very little on their side. We have seen examples during the past 12 months of pub managers being badly treated by the brewers, but having little that they can do about it. Many managers have had a bad time at the hands of the arbitration system and that has created many difficulties. That is one problem that is created by the amendment.
Another problem is the anomaly that is now being created between clubs and pubs. Several of my hon. Friends will wish to speak about that. It is strange that the Minister should say that it will be perfectly all right to stay in a pub for an extra hour, but not in a working men's club. In Committee we discussed at some length the provisions of working men's clubs and the ways in which they organise their affairs. At that stage the Minister was sympathetic to the view that many working men's clubs exercise far more control over drinking than do many pubs. The committee members of many clubs play an active role in ensuring that the atmosphere in their clubs is proper and that drinking to excess does not occur. I am glad that some Conservative Members agree with me.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider that point and tell us that he intends to do something about the anomaly that is being created. The present safeguards for the clubs do not create equality. The flexibility that is now being given to pubs will not apply to clubs. Therefore, the Minister is accepting a strange anomaly. I am surprised that, having once accepted the extension for public houses in another place, the Government should put the Whips in against clubs in this way.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is the hon. Lady saying that, if we agree with the Lords in the amendment, at a later stage she would agree with a measure to bring the clubs into line?

Mrs. Taylor: We have not yet agreed to this measure, but, if it were to go through, I see no reason why clubs should not be treated in exactly the same way as pubs. However, we should think about certain considerations before we get to that stage. We should consider the whole principle of extending drinking hours on Sunday.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth seems to have turned his attention from other matters and is now talking about the advantages to the family of having Sunday drinking. I know that some families like to go out for a meal at Sunday lunchtime—occasionally I do that myself—but we do not need to extend Sunday drinking time to do that. The restaurants, or restaurants attached to public houses, to which families go will have a restaurant licence. If they are serving food, they do not need this extension.

Mr. James Couchman: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill which Viscount Montgomery initiated in another place and which became an Act last year has given restaurants and pubs with restaurants a distinct advantage over those pubs which serve bar meals, often at competitive prices, and that that discriminates against pubs which could be part of the Sunday lunchtime family thing?

Mrs. Taylor: There may be some special pleading in that.
I return to the principle involved here. Is this the best use of families' Sunday lunchtime? I know that there are people who think that extra hours at Sunday lunchtime will create more problems than they will solve. Families who want to go out with children to have a meal on Sundays have enough time now. We do not need to extend drinking time in order to help them.
This measure is the thin end of the wedge. The Minister and the Government have allowed a back-door extension of Sunday opening and taken a serious step in that direction. They are tricking the House into extending Sunday opening times without thinking of the problems and difficulties that will be created. The problem is not as simple as the Minister thinks. Perhaps it was the Government's incompetence that led to this measure, but it is a dangerous step to take. The Government are foolish to accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Sir Bernard Braine.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Father of the House to abuse his position to be called early in this sort of debate to put forward his narrow-minded prejudices on this subject?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Sir Bernard Braine.

Sir Bernard Braine: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I should say that I spent about nine years as chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism. This is a subject upon which I have spoken fairly frequently in the House, and about which I feel passionately. In a moment the hon. Gentleman will understand why, if he has the capacity to listen.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I rise to express my dismay and regret that the Government have agreed to accept an amendment that will permit an extra drinking hour on Sundays. I recognise that the Government have been subjected to intense pressure about this by the vested interests concerned. None the less, this is a concession that should not be made, and I hope to give the House the reason why.
First, there is no evidence of majority public support for extending drinking hours on Sundays. The evidence from opinion polls suggests, on the contrary, that the majority of the public would prefer Sunday opening hours to remain as they are. By accepting the amendment the Government are bowing, not to public demand, but to the demand of vested interests. The game was given away—

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is sitting about 2 yd from him? The licensing laws in Scotland have changed and are now much more civilised throughout the week—not only on Sundays. Experience in Scotland has been that there is much less drunkenness and aggravation, and much more civilised drinking. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not learn from the experience of Scotland and from his hon. Friend, and use that knowledge in England for once?

Sir Bernard Braine: This debate is not about Scotland. If it were, I would show how alcohol harm had increased there. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to intervene, he should make sure of his facts. He is only making me more than ever determined to place the facts before the House.
The Government promised not to tinker with Sundays, and they intended to stick to that, but there was an error in another place. The right formula was not uttered at the right time. The result is that a "cock-up"—that is the term that my hon. Friend used—is now being made into a virtue.

Mr. David Steel: As the Father of the House. does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has listened to many Ministers commending amendments from another place, but he has never heard a Minister argue in favour of an amendment on the grounds that it was unprincipled, inadvertent and a cock-up? Surely they are good reasons for rejecting it.

Sir Bernard Braine: I must confess that I have never heard such an argument before.

Mr. Cunliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This evening I approached Mr. Speaker and I asked him whether I could use the phrase "cock-up" in this debate. Mr. Speaker is a member of the all-party non-profit making clubs association that I represent. He replied, "No, I do not think that it would be in order." The Minister has used those words, as has the Father of the House and the Liberal leader. I accept the Queensberry Rules, but if it is permissible for certain distinguished Members of the House to use that phrase, I claim the same privilege for the contribution that I shall make.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If those words were used too often, I believe that our debates would become somewhat inelegant.

Sir Bernard Braine: I entirely agree and I promise faithfully not to use that phrase again. I cannot promise not to refer to the inadvertence that led to the amendment being accepted in the other place, contrary to the Government's intentions.
I praise my hon. Friend for his honesty and the integrity that I know he possesses. I acquit him of any share of the blame for what happened in the other place. He may go there one day, but for the time being he is here and he has no responsibility for what happened. I am only sorry that he has to defend the indefensible.
My hon. Friend has claimed that the concession that has been made is so limited in scope—just one hour—as to be entirely innocuous. That claim lacks all credibility. Indeed, it is no more than the Government's version of the housemaid's proverbial excuse for her baby, namely, that illegitimacy does not matter because the baby is such a little one. The amendment matters a great deal.
Let us consider the likely effect of one hour's extra drinking time on local residents on a Sunday. If the amendment is carried, they will have to tolerate additional disturbance during what, for many, is the only afternoon during which they can enjoy peace and quiet with their families. Let us consider the likely effects on the existing problems of drinking and driving, and public disorder linked with alcoholic consumption. I believe—we have it on the authority of my hon. Friend—that, because of the relatively more restricted licensing regime, extended drinking hours are likely to result in more alcohol consumption on a Sunday than on other days of the week.

Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.

Sir Bernard Braine: If it is rubbish, it was said by my hon. Friend in Committee.
If consumption increases, it is clear that alcohol-related problems, such as public disorder and the mayhem that flows from drinking and driving will also increase. Sonic football fixtures are held on. Sundays, in preference to Saturdays, to reduce the likelihood of alcohol-fuelled disturbances. If the present more tranquil and peaceful atmosphere of Sunday afternoons is impaired by the amendment, it will turn out to be a mixed blessing.
I am amused at how the advocates of the drink trade pour scorn on the idea that such a little extension of drinking on a Sunday will do harm. They believe that it will add to the enjoyment of living. No doubt this will be so in remote villages and in the genteel suburbs, but the reality for much of the country is different.
10.45 pm
I shall limit myself to just one recent report in The Times of 25 April. It is a chilling report, because it shows that what is happening in inner cities is now invading the shires. [Interruption.] If it takes place on a Saturday, it will take place on Sunday as well. Let me quote from the report:
Police warnings that outbreaks of violent disorder normally associated with deprived inner-city areas were increasingly being seen in small towns were borne out at the weekend … 300 youths fought with police in Carlisle, Cumbria. Five officers, including a woman police constable, needed hospital treatment.
The violence was repeated on a smaller scale in towns in Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire … 'The common denominator—
said the spokesman for the Police Federation—
'seems to be people drinking far too much and then turning on the police with a viciousness which is particularly nasty


when policewomen are involved. The pattern is for people to take part in mob rioting with no feeling that there will be any retribution'.
This was just over one weekend.
Ten youths were arrested in Reading, Berkshire, after fighting broke out at a private party in a public house … In Alton, Hampshire, a woman was attacked with a broken glass during a brawl involving about 25 men in a public house.
So it goes on. Those of use who are in close touch with our constituencies know that this sort of thing is on the increase. Before the little inadvertence in the other place, the Government knew that it was wrong to extend licensing by this amount of time on a Sunday.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is fully aware of all this. He is not here tonight, but I will still say this. Having seen the Bill leave the House to go to the other place, I was amazed to read his comments on the occasion of the Robert Peel anniversary in the midlands on 5 February, when he said openly:
In dozens of our cities and market towns up and down the shires, we have seen disturbances caused largely by youth who were white, employed, affluent and drunk.
Those are the words of the Home Secretary, not my words; I have not thought them out. How can my right hon. Friend say that and then, because of the failure of a Whip in the other place to maintain the Government's position on Sunday opening, condone that failure and break the Government's pledge to many of us in this House not to interfere with Sundays? Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State not feel that granting extra time on Sunday afternoon will add to the problems outlined in the Tamworth speech of the Home Secretary?
We are told that extra drinking hours are needed for the convenience of those who want to enjoy a pub lunch on Sunday. It is a delightful idea, but how do they get to and from the pub if not by car? [HON. MEMBERS: "Walk."] I am talking, not about the pleasant Chiltern village, but about the towns and places where disorder already takes place. How do they get to the pub if not by car? There is very little public transport available on Sunday afternoon. In the other place the point was conceded by the Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who said:
I know that in the part of the country … where I … live. Sunday is a day when people go to the pub in a family group more than they do during the week … our neighbours, as well as ourselves, as a family get into the motor car and travel into the country to have a drink in a country pub".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 1040]
Thousands will get into cars to do so. The amendment is designed to encourage that practice. There is nothing wrong with it, provided only that the driver himself does not drink. However, the reality is that the amendment will encourage the very pattern of behaviour that the Department of Transport wishes to discourage. How do the Government propose to avert that danger?
The sentiments of the amendment are directly contrary to the assurance given by the Government about the scope of the Bill. Sunday drinking hours were excluded from the Government's consultative document. Time and again Ministers have explicitly stated that they did not regard the Bill as a means of altering Sunday trading laws. They may claim now that they were careful to leave themselves a let-out by stating that their objections to extended drinking hours were of a pragmatic nature. Those were words used by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box today. However carefully Ministers may have worded

their statements, and however carefully my hon. Friend worded his announcement this evening, the fact remains that they were taken to mean that Sundays would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. It was only on that basis that some people gave it their support.
The House should not run away with the idea that licensees are enthusiastic about the proposal in question. I totally disagree with my hon. Friend, and I am sorry to say so, because I am very fond of him.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend concede that we live in a different world today and that on a Saturday youngsters can obtain a case of beer, throw it into the boot of their car, and drink it wherever they like on Sunday? Is that not more likely to lead to drunkenness and disorder on a Sunday than an extension of pub licensing hours?

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is most helpful, because he may know that the Government's OPCS survey on the drinking habits of young people from the age of 13 onwards revealed that the majority of them had their first drinks in public houses. We have a scourge of under-age drinking in this country, which alarms publicans. They hate it; they cannot control it. It is a growing problem. If my hon. Friend will consult the police, they will tell him that there is a link between under-age drinking and fracas outside public houses and in city centres.
The House ought not to shut its eyes to reality. Last month I received a letter from Mr. John Madden, the general secretary of the National Association of Licensed House Managers, which represents public house managers throughout the country. He wrote:
I have been made aware that the House of Lords have accepted an amendment which if agreed would allow pubs to stay open till 3 p.m. on Sundays. Although this Association did not press for changes in the Licensing Act 1964 we gave the Home Secretary's proposal to amend the Act qualified support. The support was forthcoming because of the Government's intention not to change the Sunday trading hours. Although the proposed change in Sunday trading may appear to be a modest one the Association is of the view that it would only be a matter of time before the afternoon break would disappear, so changing the special character of Sunday. When the Bill returns to the House of Commons I would be grateful if you would bear in mind the Association's opposition to any change in Sunday trading hours.
It is my duty to convey to the House the view of a large number of those who manage public houses in this country.
I should like to know whether the amendment is being accepted by the Government in the hope that by doing so they will forestall any further attempts to relax Sunday trading laws more extensively. Or is it the case, as the association fears, that the amendment is the thin end of the wedge? One is entitled to ask that question. In view of the fact that to accept the amendment will be to renege on assurances previously given, the Government are under a considerable duty to make absolutely clear their intentions. Many of us in the House, and in the country, will be satisfied with nothing less than an unequivocal guarantee that the amendment will be the end of the matter in regard to Sunday opening.
Finally, the amendment throws into even sharper relief the need for effective counter-measures against drinking and driving. The Government now have the recommendations of the Road Traffic Law Review Committee, chaired by Dr. Peter North, including the recommendation:
The licensing authorities should be able to take into account, when considering whether to renew a licence, any


evidence that the licensee had regularly or persistently served alcohol to customers who went on to commit drink drive offences.
I suggest that a provision to that effect could and should have been included in the Bill, certainly now that extra drinking time is to be provided on Sundays as well as weekdays. As the House will know, the afternoon break has been abolished. Recently the New Zealand authorities pointed to that break as one reason why there was more sobriety in Britain than on the continent and decided to introduce it in New Zealand—at the very moment when the Government decided to abolish it here.

Mr. Favell: How does my right hon. Friend bear out what he has just said—that the English are a sober race, or considered to be on the continent—when we hear of nothing but drunkenness in holiday resorts abroad?

Sir Bernard Braine: That is a good question. Indeed, one of my greatest fears has always been that if we are not careful we shall have the same degree of alcohol harm here as there is on the continent. Twice as many people are killed on the roads in alcohol-related incidents in France as in this country, but the figure here is still very damaging. Whereas in France 40 per cent. of acute beds are occupied by people suffering from alcohol-related disease, the figure in this country is now only about 20 per cent. I do not say that the extra hour's drinking will change that, but in the abolition of the afternoon break—this latest move, this breaking of the word—we can see a reckless drive down the road that has brought so much misery to our continental neighbours.
Now that extra drinking time is to be provided on Sundays as well as on weekdays, the need to take strong measures is even more urgent than before. Paradoxically—and here I compliment the Government—the success of their economic policies in increasing affluence means, inevitably, that consumption will increase. That is what the trade wants: it wants to sell more liquor. Profits will increase, and that is all in order. Economic growth is involved, and so on, but we know for a fact that with every increase in consumption there is an increase in harm. That pattern can be seen not only in Britain but in the Soviet Union and the United States. No wonder the World Health Organisation has called on all member states to reduce their consumption of alcohol by at least 25 per cent. by 1995. This puny little measure is the only answer that the Government give to that challenge.
All that I say is that the nation has been warned by the royal colleges. It has been warned by the medical profession. It has been warned, repeatedly, that the harm from alcohol consumption rises with consumption itself. If the Government do not learn that lesson, God help us.

Mr. Cunliffe: First, let me declare not a pecuniary interest, but an interest, in that I share with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) the joint chairmanship of the all-party association of non-profit-making clubs, which, I am proud to say, represents 181 Members of Parliament and nine Members of the other place.
At the beginning of the debate, we saw a classic illustration of a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and telling the House that he could qualify the principle established in the Bill—or in the part that I shall consider specifically tonight—and then trying in one sentence to blow the bugles of advance and to cover the retreat of the

other place and the Government of the day. At a later stage, he confesses to the House—to use unparliamentary words—that there was a blunder of the first magnitude, to describe it discreetly, by those in the other place and by those in charge of the Administration. I say that as someone who has spent seven years in the Whips' Office.
11 pm
Clause 1 now has a blatant anomaly, which discriminates in a way that is indefensibly unfair. It says that one can have a public exclusive right, based on citizenship, to enjoy, within the public house domain, the privilege of an extra hour's drinking time on Sunday. That is clear, regardless of what Ministers have said in this House and in the other place. This privilege is denied to clubs because, although they can open from 12 to 3 o'clock, in the evening they can open only from 7 o'clock to 9.30
The Minister may ask why the clubs should have that privilege. It is because, on a £100 million turnover, they pay £15 million in VAT. They are registered patrons and make a contribution to the Exchequer and to society as a whole. From the village, bowling and horticultural clubs to the Conservative and Liberal clubs, a whole galaxy—

Mr. Alan Meale: What about Labour clubs?

Mr. Cunliffe: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend is a notable Labour club leader and will speak for himself on that. We do not publicly cross domains.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If this amendment is so discrimatory as against clubs, why is it that nobody, on behalf of the clubs—for example, the hon. Gentleman— has tabled an amendment to include clubs?

Mr. Cunliffe: At the end of my speech, I shall be posing to the Minister a question that will be relevant to that point.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Would it not have been far better if, instead of asking my hon. Friend to table an amendment, the Government had resisted the Lords amendment, thereby maintaining the status quo?

Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Cunliffe: I shall not. That would be the third intervention from the hon. Gentleman this evening, and the Government are responsible for their legislation. He should wait to make his own speech.
I can illustrate the cant and hypocrisy of the Minister in the other place, who clearly stated:
I am bound to say that I have a sneaking sympathy because the whole philosophy behind this Bill is that it should not interfere with Sundays."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 1988; Vol. 495, c. 1183.]
My argument is against the anomaly that the Government are creating. The amendment not only discriminates but segregates, penalises and takes away privileges from the private registered clubs. The Prime Minister recently sent to the annual conference of the Club and Institute Union a message of congratulation on its 125th anniversary, pinpointing the exceptional work that it had done in the past century and a quarter. It embellishes the record of the behavioural pattern of clubs. To a large degree, clubs do not deal with disorderly factions; the track record of the vast majority of clubs


bears no comparison with the incidents that have taken place in public houses. Under the clause, patrons of registered clubs inevitably will become second-class citizens in terms of rights and privileges.

Mr. Colvin: As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Cunliffe) has gone back in history to the start of the working men's club movement, will he acknowledge that in the CIU's initial constitution, which was written in 1926, the object of the clubs was to provide places where working men could meet, "free from intoxicating drinks"? The clubs have come a long way since then, but that is not necessarily an argument for having the licensing hours for clubs exactly the same as for pubs.

Mr. Cunliffe: That is the essence of the working classes of the day. The great Earl of Rosebery was a patron. Starting with the clerics, it was meant to bridle, inhibit and restrain working-class people from enjoying some of the fruits of their production. Eventually, the coin was reversed. That is what we call democratic evolution, and it has worked extremely well.
The association, of which I am proud to be joint chairman, has 10 million members and 33,000 registered clubs, and it turns over to the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds a year because of the service that it renders.
The argument is not whether alcohol is good or bad for people. I take the view that, no matter what the Minister may say this evening, there is no doubt that the Ministers, both here and in the other place, in trying to solve what they considered to be old problems, have inevitably created new ones. The administration of this Government have gone from blunder to blunder. They are inept. They cannot maintain the discipline that is expected by a policy that is sane and fair.
We are not asking for extra hours for clubs. We want only the basic equity that we now have. We shall say that again, and we may very well vote on it this evening.
I shall ask the Minister one final question. He has now admitted that there is an injustice and an anomaly within the clause. In view of the formidable representations that will be made by millions of people, will he consider with a degree of fairness a one-clause Bill to be initiated in another place? What would be his response to an attempt to correct a serious anomaly which is—I shall not use the Minister's words—a blunder of the first magnitude?

Mr. Couchman: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes at this time of night. First, I declare once again, as I have at all points during the progress of the Bill through the House, my vested interest as a multiple licensee and as the majority shareholder in a company which runs five public houses in London.
On Second Reading and on Report, I suggested to the Government that if they had been prepared to take on board the suggestion of extending Sunday lunchtime for a little while, they would be acknowledging a practice which is already prevalent in London and which, in any case, would add to the enjoyment of Sunday lunchtime by many families.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, Sunday lunchtime is one of the sessions that licensees enjoy. I ran a big public house in London for four years, and I certainly enjoyed it. But a

session between 12 o'clock and 2 o'clock is very brief. Many will welcome the sensible extension from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock that their Lordships have written into the Bill. It will help to restore the balance between restaurants and pubs that have restaurants attached to them that serve Sunday lunch. More families now go out to Sunday lunch —

Mr. Hoyle: It is about profits.

Mr. Couchman: Of course it is about profits, and that is nothing to be ashamed of; pub hours could be extended at times when public houses would serve nothing and when it would not be worth their while to open.
What harm would it do if families with children over 14 were allowed into public houses to enjoy a bar meal, representing good value for money, and if they were able to linger over their Sunday lunch until 3 o'clock? The apocalyptic vision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will not come to pass.
I should have preferred Sunday lunchtime to be extended from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock, but if it is to be extended from midday until 3 o'clock I do not believe that the question of licensing hours will return to the House for quite a long time. It will satisfy those who want a drink with their Sunday lunch. It will also satisfy the trade and the wicked brewers. I am a tenant of the wicked brewer landlords. It will not cause immense damage or harm to the fabric of society and it will remove the licensing issue from this House for probably a decade. If the extension had been from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock, I suspect that it would probably have removed it for all time.
I ask the House to give the amendment a fair trial and to vote for it tonight. I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe). It will create a difference between pubs and clubs that is probably undesirable. However, the clubs fought publicans. They wanted to install jackpot fruit machines and to enjoy that privilege over public houses.

Mr. John Evans: The proceeds of a fruit machine in a public house go to the tenant or to the brewer. The proceeds of a fruit machine in a club are returned to the members.

Mr. Couchman: It is the profits of fruit machines in clubs that allow their members to drink so cheaply. That is a very large raison d'être for clubs. But that is by the by, and I was perhaps unwise to mention fruit machines.
I should have looked favourably on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leigh that would have put clubs on all fours with pubs in that respect. It is a very poor reason to oppose the amendment because clubs, in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, are discriminated against by their Lordships' amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point suggests to people who may oppose other measures in which he is interested that, by giving those measures a fair wind, they may be taken off the agenda. My right hon. Friend knows of the legislation to which I refer. I hope that he will give this Bill a fair wind, as I hope he gets a fair wind for those measures for which he has an aspiration. I encourage hon. Members to agree with their Lordships.

Mr. Hoyle: I, too shall declare an interest, but not a profitable one. I speak, I hope, for the National


Association of Licensed House Managers, which has an interest in the debate. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), read out a letter from the association's general secretary. Account should be taken of that association's views.
NALHM regards Sunday as a special occasion. Its members work hard all week. The break on Sunday is precious to them and their staff. It enables them to enjoy Sunday with their families. They oppose any measure to take one hour off them. The Minister knows full well that the NALHM agreed, with some reluctance, to changes in the licensing hours, on the understanding that there would be no change for Sunday or bank holidays.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Castle Point that this is the thin end of the wedge. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that he would have preferred the opening hours to be from 11 o'clock. It would go from 11, to 10 to 9 o'clock, until the break began to disappear. People will not be satisfied with what has happened.

Mr. Couchman: That is not right.

Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, I shall give him every opportunity to rise.

Mr. Couchman: I suggested on Second Reading that a more suitable amendment would provide for opening between 11 and 3 o'clock because many licensees in London and elsewhere already take a liberty with licensing hours. I do not in any way, shape or form condone their actions. They open because there is demand. There is a demand from people who do not necessarily want to go to church and who would like to he able to have a drink on a Sunday morning from 11 o'clock rather than from midday. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my speech on Second Reading. I do not wish to see Sunday as an ordinary day of the week. I remember when Sunday afternoon was a welcome break.

Mr. Hoyle: I know that I made a mistake in giving way. We have just heard a speech. I hope that the pubs in which the hon. Gentleman has an interest are not breaking the law.

Mr. Meale: All five of them.

Mr. Hoyle: Yes. I shall allow the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) to see whether his pubs are breaking the law this coming Sunday. That does not excuse what is happening to the staff. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed my worst belief, that my fear is justified. Having achieved this little extra hour, some licensees will come back for more. It is the old theme of profit for the brewers.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, but only because the hon. Gentleman is a near neighbour, and for no other reason. The hour is late, but I shall give way.

Mr. Butler: I suggest that profit is important to both our constituencies. We both have breweries in our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman has Tetley Walker and I have Greenall Whitley. Should they not be allowed to make a profit?

Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman knew a little more about our constituencies, he would know that I have Burtonwood too. I have been under no pressure from either to say that the licensing hours should be increased. I am speaking for the staff who work in those pubs controlled by Greenall Whitley, Tetley, Burtonwood and others, because they deserve to be spoken for. If we do not speak for them here, no one else will speak for them. Many Conservative Members will speak for the brewers and we shall no doubt hear from them later.
The Minister has behaved like Mr. Chad by getting down in his seat so that we can only see his nose peeping over the Dispatch Box. The Government have ratted on a promise made in good faith. The Minister is very uncomfortable and I am not sure whether he went along with that. It is the second U-turn by the Government today because of the pressure put upon them.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental difference between the U-turn carried out by the Government this afternoon and tonight's U-turn because the latter is in accord with what the Government wanted all along? Home Office Ministers made it clear from the start that they favoured complete liberalisation on a Sunday and only what they called pragmatic reasons prevented them from accepting it and induced them to give that promise which, for whatever reasons, is not now being honoured. The Government are therefore yielding to something that they wanted all the time.

Mr. Hoyle: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not a matter of principle; it is a pragmatic arrangement. Many people who went along with the rule now feel badly let down. It is a disgraceful episode.
I have never seen the Minister look more uncomfortable than when he was trying to explain why the Government were not opposing the measure. He used a phrase which, because of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to use, although it aptly describes the situation.
The Father of the House was right when he said that many of us have gone along with the proposal on the understanding that Sundays and bank holidays would not be interfered with, although the Minister does not go along with that. We now fear the worst because what has been done can happen again. It is important that we speak for the staff, many of whom are badly paid and poorly represented. The house managers have a difficult time in their negotiations with the brewers on such matters, as I have explained to the Minister. Pressure will be on those people all the time and it is a shame that we are eating into Sunday, which the country regards as a special day. Those people work long hours, are dedicated to their jobs and try to run their houses in the best way.
My hon. Friends are right to feel aggrieved when they speak for the pubs. One of the points that has not been made but which should be taken into account is that, because of the anomalies, people may go from clubs to pubs and may drive a motor vehicle to obtain that extra drink. That is where the danger lies.
The Minister suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) that he should table an amendment as a remedy, but the Government should have tabled an amendment to remove the provision made by the House of Lords to return to the status quo, that both clubs


and pubs should open for the same length of time. That makes a great deal of sense, but the alternative will lead to chaos, anomalies, accidents and a loss of life. When there were "dry" and "wet" counties in Wales, people would cross the border to obtain an extra drink. That will happen on a Sunday lunchtime. We are being asked to take a retrograde step. It is a step in the wrong direction and one that is not welcomed by the managements and staffs of public houses.

Mr. Greg Knight: I disagree with most of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), but I find that my support for the amendment is lukewarm because it does not go far enough. I have no difficulty in accepting that pubs should be allowed to open for an extra hour on Sundays. Licensees must be adjudged by the courts to be fit and proper persons, and I believe that they should be allowed to open their pubs as and when they choose. I accept, however, that that is not the issue before us. We are asked to approve an amendment that seeks to give one extra hour of opening to pubs on a Sunday.
My support for the amendment is lukewarm because I believe that it will create an anomaly between pubs and clubs. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State rightly said that there are important differences between pubs and clubs, and he went on to ask whether those who run clubs want the differences to remain. I do not think that that is the issue. Hitherto, clubs have been allowed the same number of hours as pubs. If we accept the amendment, we shall be creating an anomaly. Pubs will be able to open for six and a half hours on a Sunday and clubs will be restricted to five and a half hours. I find that difficult to accept, especially as the Minister of State in another place said that the Bill had been introduced to tidy up some anomalies. In my opinion, the amendment is creating an anomaly.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State asked the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) why he had not tabled an amendment to the amendment if he felt so strongly about the issues raised by it. The views that have been expressed by Opposition Members are not peculiar to the Labour party. Some of my hon. Friends are worried about the effect that the amendment will have on clubs. A few days ago, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), who is treasurer of the Association of Conservative Clubs, I went to the Public Bill Office to seek to table an amendment to the amendment. We were told that because the House is able to consider only amendments that come within the narrow base of the Lords amendment, our proposal would be ruled out of order. That is why there is no amendment on that relating to clubs. The absence of such an amendment is not due to a lack of will on the part of Labour or Conservative Members. The rules of order prevent the tabling and selection of such an amendment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his candid opening remarks. He acknowledged that the debate is taking place as a result of a cock-up. I take it that the consequences of the amendment were not envisaged by the Government. I am prepared to accept this amendment on the basis that the Government and the House are prepared to keep an open mind. If a measure is brought before the

House to remove the anomaly to which I have referred, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give it his support.

Mr. Anderson: The anomaly to which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has drawn our attention reflects the foolishness of the Government in adopting a piecemeal approach and accepting in part that which their Lordships stumbled into at a certain hour of the night, for no good reason. It seems that they were not competent enough at the correct time to do what they should have done.
I found it interesting when the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) argued that the amendment will stop for a decade any further liberalisation of licensing laws. He asserted that if there had been yet further liberalisation within the Bill, the reform of the licensing laws would have been removed from the agenda altogether. Were that the case, I would say aye to him, but I think that almost certainly he is speaking for himself, although clearly he is very experienced in the trade.
I admire the constancy of the stance of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I fear that, as he said, Cassandra like, alcohol consumption is increasing, outlets are increasing and its availability is increasing. That will inevitably lead, as night follows day, to alcohol-related harm and all the adverse effects that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned so consistently in the House.
11.30 pm
The Minister is a skilled advocate. I am sure that he could put forward an equally plausible and well-argued case for any of the various options that he might have adopted. He suggested that the House should accept the amendment for three reasons. First, he suggested that it was modest—rather like the housemaid's baby. It was further suggested that, as in planning law, it would be a creeping commitment. There is a dynamic in the process of adding an hour here or there, until one finds that the whole structure has changed. In this amendment we see salami tactics being used by the trade.
We are seeking from the Government a willingness to stand up for the public interest against those vested interests that seek profit at all costs. When profit was mentioned, we heard a lone voice from the Conservative Benches say, "If it were not for profits, you would not have your National Health Service." It was interesting to hear such a comment during a debate on alcohol.
The second proposition advanced by the Minister in support of the amendment was that there was public demand for this measure. If the Government had been responsive to public demand and public opinion in relation to the poll tax or the social security changes, I might be rather more ready to listen to the argument about public demand. It comes ill from a Government who, over a series of issues, have not shown themselves to be ready to listen to the voice of public demand.
The Minister's third proposition was that the amendment is not wrong in principle.

Sir Bernard Braine: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Minister, I should remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary:


If such a misguided amendment were brought forward to try to include Sundays in the Bill may we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he would not back such a move?
She received the following answer:
have already stated why I believe that it would be a mistake to overload the Bill by including such a provision." —[Official Report. 9 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 41.]
The House was given a clear understanding at that time that, in the Government's view, it would be a mistake to include Sundays. We still have not heard why, because of the failure of a Government Whip in the other place to do his duty, this is being foisted on the House tonight.

Mr. Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual prescience, has anticipated the point that I was proposing to make. The Minister was raising a point of principle, but which is the more important principle—to say that the amendment should be considered on its merits or not on its merits, however modest the amendment may be, or in the light of the undertakings that the Government have consistently given to the House, which no doubt influenced the attitudes of certain hon. Members to the Bill?
The Government, who were bloody-nosed after their battering on the Shops Bill, were concerned not with principles, but with pragmatism, because they wanted to get the Bill through. They assured us that Sundays would not be affected in any way because of the Bill. The Bill was presented to us as a package, with Sunday excluded. I wholly accept the explanation that the Minister, a man of integrity, has given, that it was not a conspiracy; that it was not a wicked Government who wanted an extra hour on Sunday all along and encouraged their Lordships to look the other way; that it was a genuine mistake, and not something for which the Government should be held responsible.
However, the problem still remains as to how the Government should react. What I would like from the Minister is something similar to what the hon. Member for Gillingham said. Accepting that this has been an unintended measure of liberalisation—inadvertent and something that the Government had not intended—they can respond by saying, "Let it be; we shall let it go as it is", or they can seek to remove the amendment. The alternative, which I would commend to the Government, as the hon. Member for Gillingham has properly said, is that this is a measure of liberalisation which has gone so far and should go no further. The Government should commit themselves not to allow any further measure of liberalisation during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The hon. Member for Gillingham, who has consistently declared his own experience and interest in this matter, said that this would be accepted for decades, and would push the matter away from public debate. If the Minister were to say that, because of this mistake in the Lords, for pragmatic reasons, principled or otherwise, the Government were prepared to commit themselves to oppose any further measure to liberalise the licensing laws, I would say amen and leave it at that. No doubt that would have a degree of consensus in the House. However, if the Government leave it at that and encourage further measures of liberalisation, I would say that they are acting dishonourably.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Due to the procedural irregularity in another place, we have the opportunity well after half-past 11 on a Wednesday night

to discuss what I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister is a very modest amendment, to permit an additional hour's drinking in public houses on a Sunday. I believe that it is a measure which will be welcomed by the public, the licensed victuallers, the hoteliers and visitors to Britain.
My only reservation is the one expressed by my hon. Friend for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) about clubs. I declare an interest as president of the Uxbridge Conservative club. However, we are not considering clubs tonight. We are considering this amendment as it comes from another place. It is not open to us to consider clubs, so we must address ourselves to the amendment.
Many public houses on Sundays now serve food, ranging from hot bar snacks, to brunch, to traditional Sunday roast. In pubs and restaurants with separate restaurant areas, customers are able to take advantage of the reform which allows alcoholic drinks to be served with a meal all day. As hon. Members know, that reform was passed by this House in 1987. However, even more pubs would offer food if the 2 pm peak were to be spread out.
I believe that Sunday lunch is an important family occasion. It is an important part of the traditional British Sunday. It contributes to the special nature of the day.
Many families wish to enjoy an occasional Sunday lunch at a pub, but the occasion is spoilt by the abrupt closure at 2 pm. All of us in this House are used to closures, but I dare say that many hon. Members present tonight would agree that an abrupt closure at 2 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon spoils what should be a leisurely family occasion. Not only does it seem strange and inconvenient to many people, but it causes them to wonder how such restrictive laws could still operate in 1988.
Sunday is a day on which most families have time for activities quite different from the busy rush of the working week. Many of them want to retain the traditional character of the British Sunday, and I am one. However, I do not believe that this change, which has come about inadvertently in another place, would in any way change the character of that special clay. On the contrary, it would make the day just a little less frantic for all those people who want to go into a pub for lunch on Sunday.
I also want to draw the House's attention to the fact that the traditional pub, for which Britain is justly famous, is at an economic disadvantage compared with licensed restaurants. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman ). Such restaurants can open all afternoon. Other food operations are allowed by law to trade all day. That means that many pubs cannot provide food for a reasonable period on Sunday and thus compete fairly with those other establishments. That is a powerful case for change.
I advise the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who spoke earlier about the position of staff in pubs throughout the country, that the view that I am expressing tonight is strongly supported by my local branch of the National Licensed Victuallers Association.

Mr. Hoyle: I did not refer to the National Licensed Victuallers Association; I referred to licensed house managers. My hon. Friends will be speaking about the staff who work in them. We are talking about the people who are employed, not about those who claim to be self-employed.

Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understood that point well from his remarks. However,


my point is that my remarks are strongly supported by the Uxbridge and District branch of the NLVA, which has made it clear to me that the association feels that it is in the public interest that public houses should be allowed to open later on Sundays if their customers require it.
I end by referring to visitors to Britain. All of us know that visitors to Britain face the closure of pubs of Sundays in a state of utter bewilderment. Many have come many thousands of miles to visit our country and find it strange that they cannot have a drink or something to eat in one of the famous British pubs after 2 o'clock on a Sunday —

Mr. Foulkes: In English pubs.

Mr. Shersby: I take the hon. Gentleman's point—they cannot do so in English pubs.
I understand that 47 per cent. of the complaints received by the English tourist board relate to the premature closure of pubs on Sundays. All of us want visitors to come to Britain and to come again.
For all those reasons, I believe that by accident—certainly not by design —their Lordships were right to ask the House to think again on this matter. I have done so, and I shall support this change this evening.

Mr. John Evans: At the outset I declare a non-paid interest in this subject in that I am the political secretary of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs and vice-president of the committee of the Registered Clubs Association.
I believe that there is little demand for any additional hours of opening on a Sunday. Despite my well-known interest in the subject, I have not received one letter from anyone urging me to extend Sunday opening hours. The National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs has never expressed a demand for additional hours on Sundays. If the Government had acted fairly in this respect and had ensured that there was conformity between clubs and pubs, I suspect that there would have been little interest in this debate and that many of us could have gone home much sooner.
11.45 pm
We were told that the purpose of the Bill was to modernise and relax licensing hours in England and Wales, and to remove anomalies. That proposition had all-party support in the House. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading. The Government Minister in another place said on 15 March:
The question of Sunday hours is always a vexed one. I wish to make the Goverment's view clear. The Bill is intended to be a modest, non-controversial measure. The amendments are controversial."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1988; Vol 494, c. 1051.]
That is right. There is little doubt that when the Bill left the House it had a great deal of support in all parts of the House. But that unanimity was destroyed when the Government allowed the amendment through the House of Lords.
How did the Government get into this mess in the first place? The Minister described this as a cock-up. That may or may not be so, but he has not explained how he got into this position or why the Goverment made no effort during the remaining stages of the Bill in another place to put the mess right. Nor has the Minister offered any explanation of why the Government did not move an amendment to

put right an anomaly that they had created. And I assure the Minister that he has created a real problem. Clubs close, and will continue to close, at 2 pm on Sundays. They would have difficulty if they tried to vary their hours of opening —from 1 pm to 3 pm would be highly unpopular; they could try from 12 pm to 3 pm and then again from 8 pm to 10.30 pm, or from 7 pm to 9.30 pm on Sundays. None of those times would be popular. There is little doubt that clubs will be pressurised to maintain their present hours.
It will be an unedifying spectacle to watch people troop out of a club at 2 pm on Sundays sand stay in the pub next door until 3 pm. That will create problems for the managers of licensed houses. Clubs can, to a large degree, control the people who enter them—they must be members or affiliates. But managers of licensed houses have no control over who enters their premises. The opposition that the National Association of Licensed House Managers has offered to this, through the medium of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington. North (Mr. Hoyle) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), is well thought out and well intentioned.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) accused the Labour party of being out of touch, saying that this was a popular measure. It might be popular with the brewers, but it will be somewhat unpopular with the millions of members of political and non-political clubs in this country, who will want to know of their Members of Parliament, Labour and Tory alike, why this ridiculous piece of discrimination has been introduced at such a late stage into what was was described as a non-controversial Bill.
The all-party clubs committee, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) pointed out, is by far the biggest parliamentary group, has made it clear that there should be no such discrimination between clubs and pubs. We are all united about one thing, irrespective of the massive political differences between us in every other area: we all want clubs to prosper and grow. We want them to continue to offer their services to the communities; that applies to Tory, Labour and Liberal clubs and non-political clubs. I remind the House that there are far more non-political clubs than political ones.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that goes further than that sought by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). I do not think that we should ask the Minister to keep an open mind regarding the future. The Minister should give a clear undertaking that he will, at the first opportunity, introduce a simple one-clause Bill that will correct the anomaly for which the Government are responsible.
I am aware that some of my hon. Friends wish to discuss the terms of employment and conditions of those who work in public houses, and I shall not dwell on that subject.
Unless the Minister gives us the clear undertaking for which we have asked, it is my intention to divide the House to ensure that the unnecessary anomaly that has been created by the Government will be voted upon.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In common with other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, it is necessary for me to declare an interest. As a practising advocate I have represented a number of companies that might be expected to profit were the amendment to be accepted by the House.
That necessary declaration of interest is perhaps less significant on this occasion in view of my attitude to the amendment. I regret that the amendment does not find favour with me. I say that with regret because, as a member of the Clayson committee on the licensing law reform, whose report formed the basis of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, I supported the opening of public houses on Sundays, which, before 1976, was not permitted by Scottish law.
I favour a much more relaxed licensing regime on Sundays, but I recognise that that view is not necessarily universally held inside or outside the House. It is notable that, after the passage of the 1976 Act, the opening provisions were among the most controversial and those that provoked the greatest public opposition when applications were made to licensing boards in Scotland. It is also notable that, as the Act made its way through Parliament, the Sunday opening provisions were most controversial.
When the current Licensing Bill received its Second Reading, Ministers described it as a modest extension that dealt with weekday opening only. It has already been pointed out, in a telling intervention from the Father of the House, that when questions were asked of Ministers it was made perfectly clear that they had no intention of making any alteration to licensing provision on Sundays. As a result of that assurance, a number of my hon. Friends, together with a number of other hon. Members, were persuaded to vote for the Bill on Second Reading who might otherwise not have been constrained to do so.
On Report a clause was tabled in relation to Sunday opening, but that clause was not pressed in spite of lengthy debate in which many of the issues that have been canvassed this evening were discussed.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Sunday opening provisions in Scotland were controversial and he implied that they were not proving a success. He will be aware that my constituency is principally a tourist centre and Sunday opening is extremely popular not just with tourists, but with the local residents. What has been the reaction in Scotland to Sunday opening? My experience is that it has been almost universally successful, and that seems to be the case throughout Scotland. Does he deny that?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman should attend the three-day meetings of Glasgow district licensing board and listen to the applications which are made for Sunday opening and to the objections which are made to the applications. He should follow some of the cases through to the sheriff court, where Sunday opening is frequently the subject of considerable dispute and contest.
Of course it has been successful. As someone who supported it in the report of the Clayson committee, I would hardly be likely to suggest otherwise. But there is a distinction to be drawn between its success and the public attitude to it. That is a very important distinction in the context of what we are discussing, having regard to the rather bloody nose that the Government got when they attempted to change the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales.
No acute constitutional issue arises from the fact that the amendment originated in the other place. However, good faith arises in the light of the Government's attitude previously and robustly expressed. The Bill is not a proper

vehicle for an alteration to Sunday opening provisions. To innovate upon the existing provision is essentially a matter of principle. Although it has been explained by the Minister in some infelicitous language as inadvertence, that if anything makes the matter even more indefensible.
If there is to be an alteration in Sunday licensing provisions, it should come about only as part of an overall review not only of licensing on Sundays but of other activities as well. This is an accidental, piecemeal change which the Government are prepared to accept. That is hardly the basis for good legislation.

Mr. Favell: I too declare an interest, in that I am treasurer of the Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd. If anybody had an interest in an extra hour for drinking in clubs on a Sunday it is I. I support the amendment, but I join the hon. Members for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) in pressing the Government to introduce a short Bill during the next Session, hopefully, to put the matter right for clubs.
As for the extra hour for drinking on a Sunday, it may well have slipped through in another place, but it would not slip through in this House if there were not overwhelming public support for it; of that I have no doubt. Indeed, the Labour party would not be on a one-line Whip unless it too thought that it was a popular proposal.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, on every occasion on which licensing has been discussed in the House, the Labour party has had a free vote and will continue to do so? It is only Conservative Members who are subject to the interests of the brewers and who have to have a Whip on that basis.

Mr. Favell: I am glad to hear that members of the Labour party are on a one-line Whip, and always will be, on such matters.
No matter what is said in the House, the British public house is a British institution which is the envy of many foreign visitors and which is cherished by the people who live here. Our public houses do very little harm and a great deal of good. The people who run and man them are to be congratulated on what they do for society. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment. It will be highly popular and the House should accept it.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: We have heard a great deal about public demand and the popularity of the amendment. Hon. Members who make such statements are speaking for only half of the population, the male half; indeed, it is not half, but the smaller part of the population. I have yet to hear any evidence that women are queuing up to urge hon. Members to ask for longer opening hours for public houses.
12 midnight
Conservative Members seem to imagine that the country is populated by some peculiar families. All the references have been to families who are prosperous, who are childless, and who spend all their Sundays in pubs. There are a good many other things that families can do on Sundays. Families in which there are young children, and where the wife has spent time cooking good food. will be left waiting until the husband arrives home, and they are not asking —[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Mrs. Wise: We know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if any Member talks about the interests of women, it immediately becomes a matter for hilarity among Conservative Members. They should be ashamed of themselves. I noticed earlier that when an hon. Gentleman spoke about attacks on the police and on a policewoman his remarks were the source of great hilarity on the Conservative Benches, which was very inappropriate. We become accustomed to the way in which women and women's interests are regarded by some male Members of the House.
I do not know of one right hon. or hon. Member who has been besieged by women from his constituency asking for public houses to be open for longer on Sundays.

Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: No. The hon. Gentleman has had many bites at the cherry during this debate, and I shall not give way to him.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Mrs. Wise: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), because I am a feminist, and proud of it.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank the hon. Lady. I put it to her that, although I am not a great advocate of longer Sunday opening hours, perhaps there is a group of women who would welcome them. I speak of housewives who cook all week and who want to be taken out for lunch on Sunday.

Mrs. Wise: There is an opportunity to go out for Sunday lunch. No one is suggesting that people who do not want to be tied to their house should be, but it is not necessary to extend drinking hours so that people can find the time to go out for Sunday lunch.

Mr. Hoyle: Does not all this show just how far Conservative Members are out of touch? Is it not true that the male-dominated household that we are trying to replace—[Interruption.] We expect the yahoos among Conservative Members to laugh their heads off— especially those who have a vested interest, such as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). It is in their interests, is it not?
The point is that when the husband goes drinking on Sunday the family's midday meal is ruined. We shall find that there are more disturbed families because of this provision. If the man of the house does not go to the pub but stays at home, a meal will be cooked—and that is how it should be.

Mrs. Wise: I take my hon. Friend's point. As I said before, the women of this country are not queueing up for longer drinking hours on Sundays. Many families will be disturbed by this change. I do not believe that Conservative Members have been asking their women constituents for their views on this matter. The interests of the family will not be served by the amendment.
I suggest also that at this particular time the emphasis placed by Conservative Members on extra drinking is particularly inappropriate. Many families do not have enough money to go out for their meals or even to provide a meal in their own homes. Some people are growing

steadily poorer, and the emphasis placed by Conservative Members on the opportunity to spend more money on drink on a Sunday is inappropriate.
I turn briefly to the interests of those who work in the licensed trade. Hon. Members have said that they can be protected. Working people can always be protected, and trade unions are always powerful and efficient when Conservative Members want to remove protection from them but at the moment, throughout the service trades, workers' conditions are deteriorating. They are being presented with contracts of employment which are disgraceful, which extend their hours and worsen their conditions—and they are told that if they do not like those contracts there are plenty of people queueing up for their jobs.
It is folly to suggest that those workers face their employers on equal terms, especially such employers as the brewers. Indeed, many workers in the service trades are not lucky enough to have contracts of employment at all, and fear for their jobs from week to week. That is the sort of society into which we have been led. The public demand detected by Conservative Members does not include the majority of women, and it does not include the workers involved in this trade. Certainly members of my trade union have a strong objection to any interference with Sunday trading of any description.
The Minister has told us that the amendment is with us because of the incompetence of his colleagues in another place. We are told that because of that incompetence we should accept it. There is no reasoned case for the measure—it was not advocated when the Bill came to this House—but because there has been incompetence and a mistake has been made, that mistake is now turned into a virtue and we are told that we should support it. I think that if one has made a mistake it is common sense to try to correct it as early as possible, and that is what should be done tonight.
I must part company from some of my hon. Friends. The correction that we seek is not that of the anomaly between the pubs and the clubs. We should not extend to the clubs what is being wrongly extended to the pubs; the status quo is what is required. This is not supposed to be a Sunday trading matter, and it should not become so because an amendment is sneaked in in the other place, and then presented to us to be made a permanent error.
I hope that hon. Members will join us in voting against the perpetuation of the amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be extremely brief, as the hour is late.
Do the Minister and his hon. Friends consider Sunday to be special? The House did a while ago, as was made clear in the vote on the Shops Bill 1986. If they consider Sunday to be special, do they really feel that five and a half hours' drinking time is sufficient on a Sunday?
If we continue along this road, Sunday will be just like any other day. I believe that the vast majority in this country want Sunday to continue in its traditional way. In my opinion, the vast majority of households still enjoy Sunday lunches at home—usually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has said, prepared by the lady of the house.
Traditions differ from area to area. In the mining community in which I had the privilege to be brought up, it has always been traditional for the male to have his drink at Sunday lunchtime. Sunday lunch was prepared for a


certain time, so that the family could enjoy it together and the children could go to Sunday school. Unfortunately, that way of life is no longer the norm in many parts of the country.
I see the dangers in keeping pubs open for another hour on Sunday. God forbid that it ever happens. There will be the temptation for males to stay that extra hour in pubs and clubs.

Mr. David Lightbown: Never.

Mr. Lofthouse: If the answer is "never", why is the extra hour needed? This could lead to matrimonial upset. We have heard that many divorces are caused by drink-related problems. The longer the opening hours, the more people will stay away from their families, drinking. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, I do not want the clubs to get the extra hour. I want the change to be the other way. Five and a half hours drinking on the Sabbath is quite enough. When that is no longer so, the Sabbath will mean very little. Conservative Members may laugh, but that is a dangerous road to go down.
The extension of club opening hours would place a financial strain on some of those who use the clubs, which provide the only recreation in areas similar to that which I represent and have lived in all my life—the mining communities. Because the clubs are non-profit making, members enjoy lower prices for drinks than those charged by the pubs. If the pubs have an advantage of an extra hour on Sunday, the club members could be attracted to them for the whole of their opening time, or even just for the extra hour. That could destroy some of the clubs. We all know about the large unemployment rates in the mining communities. The new law could threaten those clubs.
I know of no person in my constituency who desires an extra hour of drinking at Sunday lunchtime. There may be pockets of demand, but overall there is no general desire for it in the country.
I do not want to shove my beliefs down anybody's throat, but I hope that the House will always protect the Sabbath and keep Sunday as a special day. To extend the opening hours of pubs, or those of shops, would destroy the traditional Sunday, which I hope we shall always strive to maintain. If we should lose our Christian traditions, in which we have always brought up our children, and instead get into the habit of taking them to the pub, God protect us.
12.15 am
My final point shows that Sunday drinking could become very dangerous. Great anxiety has been expressed recently about under-age drinking. A great deal of that drink is bought in supermarkets. In my area supermarkets are closed on Sundays, so young people are attracted to the pubs and clubs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who owns pubs, will appreciate that it is difficult to ascertain the ages of those youngsters. Because the supermarkets are closed, youngsters will go to pubs and stay there for the extra hour that has been proposed.
I hope that if there is a Division the House will throw out the amendment.

Mr. Cryer: I am not a drinker of alcohol, but I have a degree of tolerance for those who drink that has not been exhibited by drinkers towards people like me.
I have received representations about the legislation from the parishioners of Great Horton parish church, who sent me a petition signed by 400 people who were opposed to the legislation. I raised the matter when the House discussed the issue. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said that he would advise Conservative Members to vote against the proposal to add an extra hour on Sundays. The Bill went to the other place, and the same Minister came back to the House and, with breathtaking arrogance, said that the Government had made a complete mess of their organisation in the other place. Their Lordships were intoxicated either with their own majority or with alcohol and could not manage to vote on a decision that had already been made in the House of Commons.
The Minister then told us that, having made that serious error, the Government did not consider it, but are throwing it in front of us—

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) put into the Minister's mouth words that he certainly did not use. I have been present throughout the debate, and the Minister did not use that language about the other place. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to introduce such language.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is capable of putting words into the Minister's mouth, but the hon. Gentleman should restrain his language.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not inappropriate for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to accuse their Lordships of being intoxicated? That is certainly unparliamentary.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a more direct point of order and certainly a genuine one. It would be quite approprate for the hon. Member to withdraw the remarks that he has just made.

Mr. Cryer: I did not say that their Lordships were intoxicated. Hansard will show that I did not say that. I said that that was a possible explanation for what the Minister told us. The Minister said that they had made a cock-up. That is the sort of language that we are told should not be used, but it is what the Minister said.
What does a cock-up mean? It means that they made a mess of it. Why did they make a mess of it? The Minister has not told us. I suggested two alternatives. I did not say that they were intoxicated. I asked whether that was a possible explanation. The Minister told us that there was a cock-up, but he did not define exactly what that means.
The Minister comes to the House and says that after that mess up in the other place the Government, with a massive number of civil servants, and with massive facilities at their disposal, have thrown the mess that was made in the other place in front of us and decided to recommend acceptance of the Lords amendment. That does not make much sense. I do not believe that even this Government can be so casual.
An amendment was made in the other place. Perhaps the Whips missed a few strokes, but the Government are shrugging their shoulders and have decided to brazen it


out. The Minister is quite good at brazening it out. He, as a brazen Minister, is acting according to his usual instincts. He said that when he recommended his hon. Friends to vote against the amendment it was a throw-away line, that no reasoned argument was put to hon. Members at that time, just as no reasoned argument has been put before hon. Members tonight.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made a telling speech. It is very good that there are some hon. Members who are prepared to adopt a minority line against the trend, which is to let the brewers have free play and to acquiesce to the mythical notion that some tourists are confused about the licensing hours in this country, though they take about five minutes to explain to anybody of average intelligence.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. Alcohol ravages our society. Hon. Members know that, because we see it here. We are not supposed to say that any hon. Member gets drunk, but we know that we could stop some of the drunkenness by closing or limiting the opening times of some of the bars in this place. If we shut our eyes—. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is muttering about this providing more copy for The Sun. I thought that the article in The Sun was extremely offensive. I was among those who were characterised as being certified alcoholics. That is absolutely and completely untrue. I am a teetotaller. But that matter is being taken up. The agenda for me is not laid down by The Sun, The Daily Express or any other organs of the gutter press. If I choose, for the purpose of my speech, to point to faults in this place, that is a matter for me, whatever the hacks who cook up the stories for The Sun care to think about it.
You were not here at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is very interesting to note that when this debate began there were a number of anxious faces looking down from the Press Gallery. They are very interested in this subject because some of them are very experienced in it. They are part of the havoc that alcohol wreaks in our society.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point referred to the fact that one fifth of all acute beds in the National Health Service are filled by those with alcohol-related problems. Because of the crisis in the National Health Service, would we not give our right arms to make those beds available to others? Ten years ago the Blennerhassett committee pointed to the link between driving and drinking and the resultant accident rate. The danger is that the extension of opening hours will result in a greater degree of alcoholism.
Many people enjoy drinking in pubs and clubs, but some people want to enjoy quiet Sundays. Many people have a strong religious faith. We must cater for those who want to enjoy a quiet alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink in a pub or a club, and for those who do not. Alcohol can be an intrusion, and we have to make a judgment about it. The Minister has not shown that he has made a judgment based on a serious examination of the problem. He said that a mistake had been made in the other place and that this House should approve it. That will not help to create a society that will accommodate both points of view— those who want to relax in pubs and clubs, and those who want a reasonably quiet and special sort of Sunday.

Mr. Foulkes: I think that we have had that argument.

Mr. Cryer: If my hon. Friend keeps interfering and inerrupting, I shall be happy to go over every point repeatedly until he feels that I have made it clear to him beyond peradventure.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has done it.

Mr. Cryer: I know that other hon. Members have been listening with much more tolerance, and I do not want to detain the House for long, but there is an alternative open to the Government. They can take the legislation away and bring it back on another day. It was their decision, not ours, to bring the Bill on late at night.
The Government should withdraw the motion. On their own admission, it is a bad amendment. There have been many comfortable smiles on the faces of Tory Members who have financial interests in this matter. I hope that all those who have a direct pecuniary interest will not vote, so that the accusation cannot be made that they will gain a direct financial benefit from the extra hour during which pubs will be open because it will help to line their pockets. That would clearly be against the interests of the reputation of those hon. Members and of the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are three matters on which it might be helpful if I responded. The first is what happened in the other place. The omission to press a Division in the other place was due to an act of inadvertence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who was responsible for the legislation in the other place, cried "Not content" the first time, but, in order to press a Division, it was necessary that somebody—either my right hon. Friend or the Whip —should cry, "Not content" a second time. That either did not happen or it was not heard. Probably it did not happen. We are dealing with recollection, so I am trying to be strictly accurate. The amendment was made without a Division. That was not in any way part of the Government's design. The Government's design was to resist the amendment and to press it to a Division. That did not happen, for the reason that I have given.
It is fair to say to the House that it was the judgment of everyone present in the other place that the mood of their Lordships was very much in favour of the amendment. Those who had to assess the mood in the other place were quite plain that the amendment would have been carried. That was not the reason for the failure to cry "Not content" a second time, but it is the context in which we must set our decision now.

Mr. John Evans: What a fairy story.

Mr. Hogg: I heard that sedentary intervention. I am not deceiving the House. I am stating the facts clearly and precisely, and I believe the information to be true.

Mr. Evans: If it is not a fairy story, will the Minister tell us why, in line with his pledges on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and in view of the Home Secretary's statements, he has not asked the House of Commons to reject the Lords amendment?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is eliding two questions. The first is whether I am deceiving the House. The answer is no. The second is why we are asking the House to agree to the Lords amendment. That is a separate question. Those who were present in the other place were quite plain that the mood was in favour of the amendment. Therefore, the question is whether it makes sense for us to try to reverse that decision. If we are being


candid with ourselves and with one another, we should recognise that we should do that only if we really have good cause to argue.
That takes me to the second point—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: rose—

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps I may finish this point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady. It raises the question whether the amendment before the House is wrong in principle or in practice. I recognise that it is a matter of individual judgment, but my judgment is plain: we are asking the House —

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Hogg: When I finish this point, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
We are asking the House to extend Sunday opening by one hour from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock to enable people to have lunch with their families and to meet a genuine need or desire. Can that extension of one hour be categorised as wrong in practice or in principle? In my considered judgment, it is unsustainable to say that it is wrong either in practice or in principle.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the amendment was moved in Committee in the other place and that there was, therefore, an opportunity on Report and, as I understand the procedure, also on Third Reading to change it? Will he also confirm that the payroll vote operates in the other place, as it will operate tonight in the House when the Government try to railroad the measure through? Does he accept that a good cause for rejecting the amendment is the assurances that he and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have given on repeated occasions?

Mr. Hogg: Let me deal with the hon. Lady's first question. It would have been possible in the other place to try to reverse the decision made in Committee, but, in deciding whether to do that, one must have regard to the quality of the argument and to the probability of success. I have made it plain to the House that, in the judgment of those who have to assess the mood of their Lordships, it was clear that there was a majority in favour of the amendment.
Secondly, it is impossible to say that the amendment offends either principle or logic. I have never believed that it is wrong either in principle or practice. When the matter has been before the House on previous occasions, Ministers, including myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, have made it plain that we opposed the extension, but we also made it plain that we did so not for reasons of principle which we do not believe apply, but for practical reasons, because we thought that it would sink the Bill. However, it has not sunk the Bill and it is leading to a small extension which, in all conscience, we cannot say contravenes logic or principle.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that if we relied upon the quality of the argument, the Government would have been defeated many times in this House and in the other place? Is he not going back on all the assurances that he has given? Does he accept that he has deceived the

House, although that may be a strong word to use? Should not the Government have stood firm on the assurances given to so many people?

Mr. Hogg: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have on this, or on any other matter, deceived the House. We stated that we would resist the amendment and try to persuade our colleagues to do likewise because the position has now changed. The other place has passed an amendment, and we must decide whether this is an issue on which to go to war with the other place. It is a matter of some substance. The other place has expressed a clear view. The question is whether, where we do not believe that an issue of principle is involved, it is right or sensible to lock ourselves in an argument with the other place.

Mr. Steel: The Minister is advancing an interesting, novel and, in some ways, encouraging constitutional theory. He is saying that if the other place has a certain mood and produces a certain quality of argument, the Government should turn turtle. Will this apply to the poll tax?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, while I may have had a hand in drafting the Licensing Bill, I did not have a direct hand in drafting the Local Government Finance Bill.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend will recall that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that he did not wish to overload the Bill. That was in response to a question from my hon. Friend in which she sought an assurance that there would be no tampering with Sunday opening hours. My hon. Friend the Minister is telling the elected House of Commons that, owing to inadvertence in the House of Lords, it was decided not to reverse that which was before their Lordships because the mood of the upper House was conveyed to the Government in some way. The mood of either House of Parliament can be conveyed only by a vote.

Mr. Hogg: I have a feeling that there is a mood now that we should proceed with the business. Therefore, I shall move rapidly to the third point that I want to make, which relates to pubs and clubs.
There is a major disparity already in the treatment by the law of pubs and clubs. That is the position in England and Wales in any event. For example, the law on under-age drinking applies to pubs and not to clubs; and the police have an unfettered right of access to pubs but not to clubs.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I shall bring my remarks to a close. I shall not give way again during this debate.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right that the Minister should say that clubs allow under-age drinking?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister has the right to deploy his argument as he thinks fit.

Mr. Hogg: It is true that the internal rules of many clubs prohibit the supply of drink to the under-aged. It is true also that the law on under-age drinking applies to pubs and not to clubs. That is the distinction that I was emphasising. The police have an unfettered right of access to pubs but not to clubs.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way

Mrs. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Hogg: The point is—

Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear to the Chair that he is not giving way.

Mr. Hogg: There is a case for making the law in its totality the same as between pubs and clubs, but I find it difficult to understand why clubs should be especially affronted by the distinction of six and a half hours for pubs on Sundays and five and half hours for clubs.
The problem with which the other place was concerned was whether —

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I have a ruling? The Minister is saying something that is patently wrong and he will not give way to enable us to correct him. We are seeking to explain to him that he is wrong and he will not give way. What can we do, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point of argument, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: The other place considered whether it was right to extend the Sunday opening of pubs by one hour to 3 o'clock to enable the public to have a more leisurely drink at lunchtime. Clubs can already do that by law.
I suggest that the House will wish to agree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 26.

Division No. 281]
[12.40 am


AYES


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Amos, Alan
Butler, Chris


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Caborn, Richard


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carttiss, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chope, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Devlin, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Dover, Den





Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Favell, Tony
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rathbone, Tim


Forth, Eric
Redwood, John


Foulkes, George
Ryder, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Freeman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shersby, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Snape, Peter


Harris, David
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stevens, Lewis


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Holt, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Summerson, Hugo


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Janman, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tredinnick, David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Knowles, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lord, Michael
Watts, John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Malins, Humfrey
Wilshire, David


Mans, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wood, Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Miller, Hal



Mills, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Moynihan, Hon Colin





NOSE


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Beggs, Roy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Nellist, Dave


Coleman, Donald
Pike, Peter L.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cryer, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hoyle, Doug



Leadbitter, Ted
Tellers for the Noes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. David Clelland and


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. John Evans.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1

MODIFICATION OF PERMITTED HOURS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
( ) In subsection (6) of that section (premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises), the words 'half past' shall be omitted.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17.

Mr. Hogg: The amendment will allow off-licences to open at 8 am. Again, I invite the House to accept the amendment.
At the moment, off-licences can open at 8·30 am. The amendment therefore advances the hour by 30 minutes. That coincides with many opening hours and helps the early shopper. I cannot say that it is wrong in principle, and, on that basis, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

RESTRICTION ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

"(b) any person living in the neighbourhood, or any body representing persons who do;
(c) any person carrying on a business in the neighbourhood or managing or otherwise in charge of it in the neighbourhood; or
(d) the head teacher or other person in charge of any educational establishment in the neighbourhood."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 8 to 11.

Mr. Hogg: I commend the amendment to the House. It is the fulfilment of a commitment that I gave on Report to make it plain that head teachers are among the group of persons who have a right to apply for a restriction order. There are various other changes, but that is the substantial one.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We welcome the amendment, as it is one that we asked for in Committee. Strangely enough, this is another example of the Government's incompetence. In the debate on Lords amendment No. 1, we heard that the Government's incompetence in another place had led them inadvertently to accept an amendment on Sunday opening. In Committee we were given an assurance that the Government would bring forward on Report an amendment to include head teachers among those who could apply for an exemption order, but somehow, due to the Government's incompetence, that amendment was left out of the Government's amendments on Report. The Bill seems to be dogged with difficulties. However, we are pleased that the Government have decided to put this point right, although it is a minor step considering the extent of the changes that we were requesting.
The Minister knows that we are extremely concerned about the level of alcohol consumption by young people and about the problems that exist for young people. As the Minister also knows, we considered carefully in Committee and on Report the recommendations of the Masham committee, which showed that ten times as many deaths were caused by alcohol abuse as by drug abuse. The Masham committee told us that a vast number of young people drink alcohol under age on a regular basis. Indeed, 52 per cent. of 15-year-old boys drink alcohol once a week. The Masham committee also showed that the law relating to the consumption of alcohol by those under 18 was
complicated, anomalous and widely flouted.
We had hoped that the Minister would use the other place to introduce more amendments to deal with the problem of under-age drinking. We are in a strange

position —the Government are pressing ahead with their Bill while paying lip service to the problem of under-age drinking and the recommendations of the Masham committee.
Although we welcome this limited amendment, which we requested, we are extremely disappointed that the Government are not taking seriously the problem of under-age drinking and I hope that the Government will do something about it in the future. We cannot continue to store up problems for the future by allowing too many people high levels of alcohol consumption. The problem should concern the Government as much as Opposition Members, and I am sorry that the Government have not taken this opportunity to do something about this serious problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

New clause

POWER TO VARY PERMITTED HOURS IN ON-LICENSED VINEYARD PREMISES

Lords amendment: No. 5, after clause 7, insert new clause—
 . The following section shall be inserted after section 87 of the principal Act—

Power to vary permitted hours in on-licensed vineyard premises.

87A.—(1) Licensing justices, on an application by the holder of a justices' on-licence for any premises which form part of a vineyard, may make an order varying the permitted hours in those premises if, after hearing evidence, they are satisfied—

(a) that the sale of intoxicating liquor on the premises is ancillary to the carrying on of a business of producing wine from grapes grown in the vineyard; and
(b) that it is desirable to make an order under this section for the accommodation of persons visiting the vineyard.

(2) An order under this section may vary the permitted hours either generally or for such days or part or parts of the year as the licensing justices think fit.

(3) In making an order under this section with respect to permitted hours on weekdays, other than Christmas Day or Good Friday, licensing justices may not so vary the hours as to make them exceed in total more than twelve hours on any day.

(4) In making an order under this section with respect to permitted hours on Sundays, Christmas Day or Good Friday, licensing justices may not so vary the hours as to make them—

(a) begin before twelve noon; or
(b) exceed in total more than five and a half hours on any day.

(5) A person intending to apply for an order under this section shall give notice in writing of his intention to the clerk to the licensing justices and the chief officer of police at least 21 days before the commencement of the licensing sessions at which the application is to be made.

(6) Licensing justices shall not hear an application for an order under this section unless notice under subsection (5) of this section has been duly given.

(7) Licensing justices may revoke or vary an order under this section; but, unless it is proved that the holder of the justices' on-licence had notice of the revocation or variation, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 59 of this Act in doing anything that would have been lawful had the revocation or variation not been made."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

Mr. Hogg: This amendment is designed to assist the proprietors of English vineyards. It gives the justices a power to vary permitted hours on licensed vineyard premises, although kk ithin the existing total limits. I can expand on that if necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause

PROVISIONAL GRANT OF NEW LICENCE OR REMOVAL

Lords amendment: No. 6, before clause 8, insert the following new clause—

Provisional grant of new licence or removal

" In section 6 of the principal Act (provisional grant of a new justices' licence or removal in the case of premises about to be or in course of construction etc.) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(4A) The holder of a provisional licence may also apply to have a provisional grant declared final before the premises have been completed if it is likely that they will be completed as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section before the date appointed for the next licensing sessions; and the licensing justices, if they are satisfied that the premises are likely to be so completed and are further satisfied of the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, may direct that the declaration may be made before the next licensing sessions by a single licensing justice.
(4B) In a case where a direction has been given under subsection (4A) of this section, a single licensing justice, after such notice has been given as he may require, shall declare the provisional grant final if he is satisfied that the premises have been completed as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section.
(4C) Until a provisional grant has been declared final under subsection (4) of (4B) of this section it shall not be valid.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 15.

Mr. Hogg: This amendment is largely technical. It is a response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I can expand on it if desired; if not, I commend it.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause

DISQUALIFIED PREMISES—GARAGES

Lords amendment: No. 7, before clause 8, insert new clause—
 . After section 9(4) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(4A) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are primarily used as a garage or form part of premises which are primarily so used.
(4B) In subsection (4A) of this section, the reference to use as a garage is a reference to use for any one or more of the following purposes, namely, the retailing of petrol or dery or the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) and amendments Nos. 12 and 16.

Mr. Hogg: Subject to the House accepting amendment (a), I commend the substantive amendment to the House. I cannot commend the motion to disagree standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller).
This is a matter of somewhat greater moment than the other amendments that we have just dealt with. The effect of the substantive amendment is to disqualify premises that are primarily used as garages from holding off or on-licences. The amendment was carried in the other place, contrary to the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
There are about 180 garages with licences. There is no evidence that would stand up to detailed analysis that the possession by those suppliers of a licence has led to any drunken driving. Because almost all these premises are in rural areas, they provide services for those who live in them. Perhaps a typical example would be a corner shop that supplied the ordinary facilities of a corner shop but also sold petrol. The question is what to do about the amendment, and what our attitude should he.
This is an opportunity to send a message dissociating alcohol from driving. If we were to try to reverse the amendment, it would send the wrong signal. Whatever the evidence might prove, we are probably dealing with perceptions. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends and the House to send a message that dissociates alcohol from driving. For that reason I advise the House to accept the amendment.
1 am
There is a problem with the present 180 licence holders. They have adjusted their businesses on the assumption that they would be enabled to possess a licence. No doubt that is an important factor in their business considerations. The House must consider whether it would be right to alter the assumptions —in effect retrospectively—upon which they have constructed their businesses. I do not believe that it would. Although I commend the amendment to the House, I do so subject to the proviso, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), which safeguards the status of the present licence holders. The exemption would run with the land and attaches to the land. I am prepared to concede that that is an anomaly and is not wholly pure as a legalistic principle, but I hope that the House will be pragmatic.
I hope that the House will consider where justice lies. Having regard to those considerations, I advise the House to accept the amendment, subject to the proviso.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am extremely pleased that the Government have finally decided to accept the new clause that disqualifies garages and petrol stations from receiving a justices' licence. It is a relatively minor reform, but it is long overdue and I know that it has the support of the majority of the public.
There is no evidence to suggest that people buy alcohol from petrol stations and directly proceed to drink and drive. The Government and the public recognise, however, that drink-driving is the single main cause of death and injury on our roads. For that reason it is absurdly inappropriate—as my hon. Friend has made clear —to allow, still less to take special steps to enable, premises to sell alcohol, the primary purpose of which is to serve the motorist. Such action would cast serious doubt on the Government's readiness to take a firm stance on


drink-driving. The rejection of the new clause and the acceptance of the one proposed by some of my hon. Friends would undoubtedly be seen by the country as wholly inconsistent with, and indeed a deliberate attempt to undermine, the Government's road safety campaign. That campaign is concerned, above all, to sever the lethal association between alcohol and driving.
Alcohol and driving are a mismatch. The new clause is entirely in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the road traffic law review. That review should be debated by the House as a matter of urgency.
Although I am pleased that the Government have moved this far, albeit belatedly, I am concerned about the proposal to permit garages and petrol stations already in possession of justices' licences to retain them. Whatever the Government's reasons for supporting such a proposal, I am still concerned. Will the proposal not cause some uncertainty for the courts? What will happen when a licensed petrol station is sold to a new owner and the question arises of the transfer of the justices' licence?
What will happen when, in three years' time, licences come up for renewal? Will the licensing justices have the right to refuse an application for the transfer of the licence to a new owner or to refuse to renew a licence if they choose to do so, in line with their general licensing policy —which, of course, will be influenced by the passage of the new clause? Parliament should be told.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend asks a fair question. I apologise to him and to the House if I did not make it wholly plain. The ordinary powers of the justices to refuse to renew apply in respect of these licences. The difference that the proviso makes is that the disqualification does not bite on the existing licences. But all the other provisions in licensing legislation continue to apply to those licences.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement. I am anxious to find out why the Government are bending over backwards to protect garages with existing licences. What is the justification? [Interruption.] My questions are being put in good faith, and the House is entitled to answers. We are told that there are only 180 such petrol stations. Many are in rural areas and are protected in any case by the terms of the new clause, as are hypermarkets. Surely there would be little or no inconvenience to the general public from the removal of the remaining licences. Nor do I believe that this would cause significant financial hardship to the proprietors. To allow the licences to stand when no more are to be granted is a manifestation of weakness and irresolution. The House is entitled to an answer to that charge.
If the Government are set upon this course, so be it. What matters above all is that the Government demonstrate in some way their conviction and determination that any association of alcohol with driving is a relic of a bygone age. We are told that the justification for the Bill is the need to reform licensing law in line with modern circumstances. One would have thought that the most pressing of modern needs was to rid the country as speedily as possible of the scourge of drinking and driving. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport is here and he can confirm what I am saying. The House needs to be reminded that every year there are 5,000 deaths on the roads of which 2,000 are alcohol-related. I beg my hon.

Friend to realise that the Government must catch up with public opinion and stop being dragged along by vested interests.

Mr. Waller: The new clause which has been brought from the Lords was obviously passed with the intention of stopping drinking and driving. Superficially it seems to be helpful, but if one examines it more carefully, it is apparent that it will not have any real effect on drinking and driving but will have other undesirable effects.
The clause will not affect major supermarket retailers, even though many supermarkets are linked to petrol sales. Without the amendment, it would affect existing small stores, mainly in rural areas. Those stores are combined with petrol stations for economic reasons. Without the petrol side, I suspect that in many cases the small stores could not exist, to the detriment of local amenity and employment.
If the prohibition would be wrong for existing stores cum petrol stations, as the Government accept, it must also be wrong for those who in the future wish to establish businesses on similar lines. The new clause is illogical because it ignores the fact that those who buy alcohol in stores do not do so to drink it immediately before getting into their cars. No one would suggest that public houses should not be permitted to have car parks. However, perhaps there would be more logic in such a ban than in a prohibition on people buying alcohol at stores that have petrol stations or garages attached, to take home with them.
The precise meaning of the new clause, in its final form, is not entirely clear. It appears that it could apply to a store that shares its site with a petrol station run completely separately. There is scope for lawyers to argue about those matters in the future. I am against that, because it will provide more money for lawyers but will not do anyone else much good.
I accept my hon. Friend's assurance that the clause will be improved by the Government's amendments, because I do not believe that existing premises should be hit, as they would be if the Government's amendment to the Lords amendment is not passed. Even so, it will ossify existing situations, whether or not they make sense in the future. If, for example, there is a population shift in any area or if a bypass is built, the owner of a store-cum-garage may reach the conclusion that he cannot move because, whereas he can retain the alcohol licence on his existing premises, he will not be able to obtain one for a new site, however strong his arguments.
It is unfortunate that the Government are not reversing the decision made in another place. My hon. Friend said that to do so could be to send the wrong signals. Although that is a significant consideration, I hope that he will put first the important matter of getting the legislation right. I hope that the arguments that he and others may deploy in the other place and elsewhere will be sufficiently convincing to ensure not only that the new clause can be reversed but also that the wrong signals are not sent.
The Government could have explained why the new clause passed in the Lords will do nothing to help, and why it may do some harm. The amendment mitigates that harm but the clause is a step back, to set against the considerable number of steps forward that the Bill incorporates.

Mr. Forth: I appreciate the positive response by my hon. Friend the Minister to the amendment in my name.


It demonstrates the balanced view that must necessarily be taken of this matter in trying to understand the concern that has been expressed, in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), about garages selling alcohol. However, we must equally recognise that no firm evidence has been produced of a direct connection between such sales and drink-driving offences.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that alcohol can be sold by garages adjoining main roads, but not by similar garages adjoining motorways?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I am most grateful to him. We must also recognise, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the important role that garages play in rural communities. This consideration is of importance to many right hon. and hon. Members and is behind the thrust of the amendment. I welcome what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister and hope that the House will accept the amendment in his name and mine, in order to recognise the problem identified in another place and the important role played by garages in rural communities, which role we can sustain by carrying the amendment.

Miss Widdecombe: Although I support the amendment to the Lords amendment, I regard it as a very poor third best. As far as I can see, it does not direct itself to the essential problem, which is not whether alcohol is sold together with petrol, but the nature and control of alcohol sales. I suggest that they are best controlled at local level, by magistrates.
I made it clear on Second Reading that I am extremely worried about drink driving and any possible encouragement to drivers to drink. That is why I think it right that garages adjoining motorways should not be able to sell alcohol. Drivers stop at such garages and would have the opportunity to consume alcohol.
1.15 am
My constituency, which serves an entirely rural area, contains a major development. The owner set up initially as a garage, and then set up a store specialising exclusively in wines. I know that modern cars have many gadgets, and that modern dashboards have many amenities, but I do not recall a corkscrew being among them. I need a lot of convincing that someone who goes into that shop and buys a bottle of wine will solemnly uncork it at the next set of traffic lights and take a drink from it.
I believe that if beer is being sold in single cans, possibly on ice, there may well be a temptation to buy a single can, open it and down it. Similarly, I can just about believe that a driver might be tempted to take a nip of spirits, but not to uncork a wine bottle. That is why I say that the nature of sales is important and that the best people to judge that are local magistrates.
I am, of course, very pleased that my constituents have been protected. Within 24 hours of the Lords amendment being known I had received a petition containing about 200 names from people in the locality. The proprietor of the business receives only a 4·per cent. profit on his petrol sales, which is cut to under 2 per cent. by the use of credit cards. He makes his main income from his wine business.

If he were obliged to close down, people from miles around in that rural area would not have garage amenities and would not be able to buy petrol.
While I am delighted that that garage proprietor is protected, which is why I willingly accept the amendment, I am not so delighted that any future similar enterprises —conscientious, responsible and not encouraging drinkdriving—will not be allowed to flourish. There is no proven link between the purchase of alcohol at a petrol station and drink-driving. If the House really wants to get rid of drink-driving, let us close down all the country pubs tomorrow. I am sure that that would not commend itself to many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), but that is the logic. The proposal hits at the periphery, not at the centre, of drink-driving.
The Lords amendment talks about "primary purpose". I assume that to be used in planning terms. If the garage preceded the wine business the primary purpose is the garage, but, as in many such enterprises, the associated stores and business are actually the primary source of profit. There is confusion here.
This is a poor Lords amendment. The tidying-up of it is third best, but at least it protects existing licensees, and for that reason I am glad to support it.

Mr. David Harris: I am happy to endorse everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). She has set out the position with great clarity, and done the House a service in so doing.
I am sorry to have to quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), with whom I see eye to eye on many subjects—

Sir Bernard Braine: We do not quarrel.

Mr. Harris: Then I shall use the word "disagree".
My right hon. Friend asked what was the justification for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). Obviously, as has already been said, the amendment is of particular significance to rural areas. I do not know how much my right hon. Friend knows about such areas. They are very different from his constituency. When the matter was debated in another place, Lord Ferrers said that he thought there were about 150 licensed garages, not 180. That may not matter too much. He then went on to say:
When the department sought details of the number of licences granted to garages in 1986"—
perhaps that explains the discrepancy—
it emerged that over half were to be found in the four counties of Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk and Dyfed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 1988; Vol. 495, c. 892.]
Those four counties are largely rural, and those licensed garages are, I suspect, in the rural areas. I can speak only for Cornwall, and, to a certain extent, Devon, but that certainly is the case there. As has been said, many of them are petrol stations with an adjoining village shop, or, increasingly, a minimarket.
The proprietor of just such a business wrote to me a couple of days ago and set out his position. The business is run by the family—the man, his wife and daughter—and employs four shop assistants. It is typical of the small businesses that are essential to the well-being of the rural areas. This one is on a main road, and is roughly about half way between two towns. There are adjoining caravan


sites, as it is a tourist area, and I have stopped at the garage and used the minimarket—not to buy alcohol, although I know that many people do. The irony is that 20 yards away is a pub. As the proprietor points out, it would be nonsense if the other place had its way. Someone would drive into his forecourt, park his car, go into the minimarket for groceries, and then, because he wanted some alcohol before going back to the camp site or the cottage up the road, go into the pub to buy alcohol from the off-sales.
I make no secret of the fact that I would prefer the House to reject the Lords amendment, but I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister. Therefore, with some reluctance, I agree that the practical course is to accept the amendment to the amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire. We owe it to established businesses to let them continue in the way that they have continued for several years and to serve their local communities. I hope that, on reflection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will see the justice in that. I would like to go much further and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has said, leave it to magistrates. If we are not going to do that, in equity, we must protect the established businesses. Therefore, I support the amendment to the amendment.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am in the strange position of being one of the few hon. Members here to support the Minister. His hon. Friends have been overreacting in setting out some of the difficulties that they think will be created by this modest amendment. This is one of the few amendments that could be so described, although the word "modest" has been used on other occasions. However, it is a sensible move. It will not hit the supermarket or the hypermarket that sells petrol as well as groceries and drink. It will not hinder those existing stores that sell a wide range of goods in rural areas. It will help to stop the tendency of roadside cafes, which hitherto have served sandwiches and cups of tea, from selling drinks as well. Cafes or small restaurants attached to garages are becoming an increasing feature of our road network, and that is beginning to create a problem. Small chains of roadside cafes are now selling alcoholic as well as non-alcoholic drinks, but selling alcohol in premises designed for the motorist will create problems.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) accepted that garages adjoining motorways should not sell alcoholic drinks. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic, who is here tonight, would be quick to remind us that the majority of accidents involving casualties and fatalities do not take place on motorways. By allowing or encouraging motorists going on holiday or on short trips to stop at licensed roadside cafes attached to garages we might create more problems in future.
I agree with the Minister that if we accept the Lords amendment we will be able to send out a signal about the dangers of associating driving with drinking. We should always be aware of the problems. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) pointed out the very

serious and real problems of drinking and driving. About 1,500 people a year are killed, and each month about 8,000 people are found guilty of driving while over the limit. Those are extremely frightening figures. We should not allow that figure to increase, and this modest amendment is a step in that direction. That figure does not include those people who do not get caught but who are potential causes of accidents and potential killers because they drive while over the limit.
The sooner that random breath tests are introduced the better. It is not possible to amend this legislation to include measures of that kind, but I welcome the amendment and the Government's change of heart. It will be a small contribution, but we should accept it.

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), at end insert—

'(2) Where, apart from this subsection, a justices' licence (within the meaning of the principal Act) would become void on the coming into force of subsection (I) above, the premises to which the licence is attached shall be treated as premises which are not disqualified for receiving such a licence by section 9 (4A) of that Act for so long as they continue to be premises for which such a licence is in force.'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 17 agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

MINORS' CONTRACTS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Minors' Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 16 March, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Neath General Hospital

Mr. Donald Coleman: I beg leave to present a petition. The petition, in the name of Harold D. Thomas of 17 Leonard street, Neath, mayor of the borough' of Neath, supported by 28,975 persons whose names appear on the electoral register of the borough of Neath, reads:
To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the inhabitants and residents of the Borough of Neath in the County of West Glamorgan Sheweth
That the West Glamorgan Health Authority wishes to close the existing General Hospital in Neath and to construct a replacement hospital at Baglan Moors, Port Talbot.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House call upon the Secretary of State for Wales to either

(a) hold a public inquiry to consider the merit of situating the new hospital at Baglan Moors.

or

(b) require the West Glamorgan Area Health Authority
to construct the hospital at Cadoxton in Neath.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Occult Societies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The purpose of securing this debate is threefold. First, I wish to warn parents to be vigilant and to impress upon their children the dangers of dabbling in black magic and other obscure occults. Secondly, I wish to call on all Christians to unite in prayer, word and deed to condemn Satanism and to provide kind and special support for those possessed by the devil who turn to the Church for help. Thirdly, it is necessary to ensure that the Home Office is aware of and alert to the rapid growth in the United Kingdom of black witchcraft and Satanism.
The fear of the devil is being put into children's minds, and that is evil. This black magic influence is so strong and dangerous that the power and command over adults and children is total. Disgusting ceremonies are held, in which children are sexually abused by Satanists. Paedophiles are joining such groups because they have found yet another way to get their hands on children whom they know will be too terrified to talk. It is within my knowledge that children who have escaped are under treatment and are still receiving psychiatric care and help from their local priests.
There have been other disturbing reports recently of the desecration of 100-year-old tombs. Bodies have been removed, heads cut off and fingers sliced away. Coffins have appeared at dawn on cemetery roads. In another location, 250 miles away, graves have been dug up. People have been charged under the Burial Act and the truth may never be established, but many local people are convinced that it was the black magic occult.
How can we be sure that our facts are accurate? Having spoken to parents who have alleged that their children have been assaulted, and knowing that police charges have been brought against several accused recently, we must await the court hearings, because of the sub judice rules. Other cases involving over 20 children alone have been brought to my notice and are under investigation. A child's diary confirmed the parents' fears, and interviews with children have been tape recorded.
Librarians have written to advise me that books on black magic and the occult are in great demand. Magazines on witchcraft and black magic are being used for contact advertisements. Videos on black magic are being made in abundance and hire shops report constant requests for such material. Shops selling witchcraft regalia or paraphernalia are springing up. Vicars, priests and preachers have contacted me, expressing support and deep concern. Hundreds of letters arrive each day supporting my efforts, and some provide new information. It is nearly impossible for me to reply to so many, but I intend to try.
In the city of Leeds alone there is to be found the Flashmail order centre of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Just up the hill there is a large store called Astonishing Books, under the same control. This business is founded on books on witchcraft, black magic, Satanic rituals and other occult practices. On sale are false altar images, such as a Phoenician goddess statuette, a Satan skull ring and many others things.
The growth of this business and other such shops reinforces my warning that we could soon follow the path

of the United States of America. Some felt that I had exaggerated the scale of the problem and were very amused when I suggested that witchcraft was nationwide. Since then witches have written from every corner of the United Kingdom to advise and warn me. Only today a rural dean has written to tell me of the distress inflicted on his family and to reinforce my campaign with first-hand experience. Children were sexually and mentally assaulted in that case. In a telephone conversation with his wife today, the harrowing chapter of events was revealed. Those involved have not fully recovered to this day. This week I have received the testimony on tape of a former witch who has turned to Christianity for love and support. Another lady became steeped in clairvoyancy from the age of 10 and has found peace of mind only through turning to Christianity.
The Witchcraft Act 1735 was repealed and replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951. I shall be interested to learn how many convictions have been brought and have succeeded under that Act over 37 years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will write to me, because I cannot expect him to provide such information now. The provisions of the 1951 Act would be unlikely to check the spread of witchcraft, Satanism and other worrying occults. The defence would say that reward was not involved. Strictly speaking, it seems to me that the Act is tailored to control spiritualists, clairvoyants and those practising telepathy.
Never again can it be claimed that our Law Officers are unaware of the growing menace. I have now warned Parliament, and that warning is duly recorded in the Official Report of our proceedings. It is my intention in a few weeks' time to hand a dossier to the Home Office, compiled by Childwatch and me. We must then discuss how best to proceed to safeguard children. There will not be an easy answer, but we may learn from discussions with certain American states. It is certain that black witchcraft and Satanism will not go away unless we unite to drive it away.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) on securing this Adjournment debate. I share, as I am sure does the whole House, a deep concern for the welfare of children. If my hon. Friend has evidence that certain organisations and individuals are indulging in practices that are harmful to children, it is only right that he should bring up the matter. I understand from what he has said that in a few weeks he will forward to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a dossier compiled by him and by the organisation which is assisting him.
It is a basic tenet of an open society such as ours that a person must be free to hold the beliefs that he or she wishes, as I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, but that principle is certainly modified by a clear requirement that any acts arising from such beliefs must be within the bounds of the criminal law, and I know that I have my hon. Friend's agreement on that point.
If an organisation indulges in practices that are demonstrably harmful to others or incites anyone to do so, that is a serious matter and the Government would treat it seriously. For all of us, freedom means freedom from oppression and brutality and, above all, from physical or


mental abuse. In those circumstances, the law can intervene. The law provides protection for individuals, especially for those least able to protect themselves—children. A wide range of offences already exists to deal with every form of ill-treatment and physical and sexual abuse of children. Serious and severe punishments are laid down for those who abuse children in this way.
Tackling the problem of child abuse goes beyond the Home Department's responsibilities. Indeed, it goes beyond the responsibilities of any official body. The law cannot expect to provide protection in a void. We must look to others as well. Parents, schools and all those who have a responsibility for children's welfare must play their part. But we must provide where those responsibilities are not met.
Children at risk can be taken into care or into a place of safety. We are always conscious of the need to do everything that we can to ensure that any cases of child abuse do not slip through the net, including the cases to which my hon. Friend alluded. One of the steps that we are taking is to encourage the police to work with the social services in the investigation of such cases.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that parents and schools should introduce children at an early age to the rich tradition of religious experience and also warn them clearly and explicitly against the perversion of religious and personal beliefs by witchcraft and other cults.
No aspect of criminal law is set and immovable. It must be monitored regularly, and we must ensure that it does what it sets out to do. In the case of these offences, such reviews are particularly important. We must be alert to the need to amend and strengthen the law, if necessary, and we have been doing just that. The Criminal Law Revision Committee was asked to consider the law on assaults and sexual offences. It concluded that there were significant gaps in the protection afforded to children by the criminal law. I share that general view, but that is not to say that important changes cannot and should not be made.
For example, the Sexual Offences Act 1985 increased the maximum penalty for indecent assault on a young girl from five years' to 10 years' imprisonment. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 makes a husband or wife a compellable witness where the spouse is accused of a sexual or violent offence against a child under 16. The Criminal Justice Bill, a most important measure currently before the House, proposes a number of important reforms. As my hon. Friend knows—I have his support on this—a particularly significant reform is that it will be an offence to possess photographs, films or videos of an

indecent nature involving children.
The law comes down hard on those people who abuse children where convictions can he secured. We are constantly monitoring and strengthening the criminal law. Abuse undoubtedly occurs in the course of certain practices. When such practices and abuse are reported to the police and convictions are secured, there are severe penalties for those who have been found guilty.
Any evidence of the practices described by my hon. Friend must, first and foremost, he taken up with the police and any dossier, such as that promised by my hon. Friend, should be presented to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I should like to deal briefly with two other matters. The first relates to my hon. Friend's request for the number of people convicted under the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951. He is right in his supposition that I am not able to provide those figures tonight. I do not have quite the fingertip control of the statistics that I should have, but I shall look into the issue and, if possible, provide the information that he wants.
The second matter concerns my hon. Friend's point about the disgusting and appalling desecration of graves and coffins. I shall consider the issue of improper rituals on sacred ground. The desecration of graves and such activities are distasteful to everyone, particularly the relatives of those whose coffins have been interfered with. The law exists to deal with such acts. Grave robbing is an offence against the common law. There are various enactments which cover riotous or violent behaviour in places of worship, churchyards and burial grounds. The 1977 order that applies to local authority cemeteries prohibits any disturbance or nuisance in a cemetery or interference with graves, vaults or tombstones. Even quite minor damage to a tombstone can be caught under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Those who commit such acts can be properly punished if they are caught, and I share my hon. Friend's desire that that should be the position.
I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are keenly aware of the need to consider amendments to the law, if it appears necessary to do so, to give children full and effective protection beyond that which already exists. If my hon. Friend has material that he believes shows that such amendment is necessary, we shall consider it extremely carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o'clock.